JULIAN INGRASSIA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Julian Ingrassia appeals his conviction for indecent assault and lewd and lascivious acts involving a child victim. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted the child victim's hearsay statements to a detective under Florida's child hearsay exception because the trial court made detailed, case-specific findings of reliability.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the child victim's hearsay statements because it made detailed, case-specific findings supported by the record demonstrating the statements' reliability, including findings regarding the detective's credibility, the timing of the statement, the detailed nature of the account, the child's language patterns, the relationship between child and defendant, and clear and convincing evidence of reliability.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting a child victim's hearsay statement when it makes case-specific findings of reliability supported by the record, r…
[2] When determining the admissibility of a child victim's hearsay statement, a court may consider factors such as the credibility of the interviewing officer, the timing of…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court did not merely recite the statutory requirements or summarily find the statements were reliable. Instead, the court set forth case-specific findings that were supported by the record.”
Distinguishes this case from prior cases and establishes the proper standard for admitting child hearsay statements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA four-year-old child victim gave a taped statement to Detective Ulvang describing three sexually explicit episodes involving the appellant. The child…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Victim cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, J.
Julian Ingrassia appeals his conviction and sentence for indecent assault, lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child, and unnatural and lascivious acts. We affirm.
The child victim gave a taped statement to Detective Ulvang when she was four years old. In her statement, the child described three different sexually explicit episodes between her and appellant. These acts were substantiated by both appellant’s own admission to the police and the child’s testimony at trial.
Prior to trial, however, the trial court granted the state’s motion for admission of the child victim’s hearsay statements to the detective. After an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial court found her statements bore sufficient safeguards of reliability and therefore, were admissible.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to make ease-specific findings that the child victim’s hearsay statements were reliable and admissible as required under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1997). He argues that the trial court’s limited findings were factually insufficient to satisfy the specific requirements of the statute and cites Feller v. State, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1994), and Garcia v. State, 659 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), in support. We disagree.
In its order on the admissibility of the child victim’s hearsay statements, the trial court found the statements were trustworthy because:
a. The source, Det. Ulvang, is an attorney and seven year veteran with the Broward Sheriffs Office and a credible witness.
b. The statement was given to Det. Ulvang six days after the alleged crime was reported by the child to her mother. c. The statement detailed incidents of unlawful sexual touch and genital contact covering a period of approximately two months.
d. The statement itself demonstrates narrative responses in terms common to a child of [the victim’s] age, and a product of non-leading questions.
e. There is no evidence of a turbulent relationship between the child and the Defendant. Quite to the contrary, the child maintained a harmonious relationship with the Defendant. f. The reliability of the child’s statement to Det. Ulvang has been established by clear and convincing evidence.
Here, unlike Feller and Garcia, the trial court did not merely recite the statutory requirements or summarily find the statements were reliable. Instead, the court set forth case-specific findings that were supported by the record. Therefore, we hold, as in Reynolds v. State, 660 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the child victim’s hearsay statement because “[t]he record reflects that the court cumulatively weighed numerous potential facts, such as time, circumstances, credibility, demeanor, spontaneity, internal consistency of the individual statements, and maturity of the child.” Id. at 780.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hakim Elghomari v. State, 66 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…under section [*419] 90.803(23) and the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings of fact for an abuse of discretion. Ferreiro v. State, 936 So. 2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1988)); Ingrassia v. State, 747 So. 2d 445, 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, the child sexual abuse hearsay exception, provides: Hearsay exception; statement of child victim.— (a) Unless the source of information or the method or circumstances by which the st…
-
Farinacci v. State, 29 So. 3d 1212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…ilor its proposed instruction to the precise charge. Reversed for new trial. TAYLOR, J., and LEVENSON, JEFFREY R., Associate Judge, concur. . § 90.803(23), Fla. Stat. (2009). . Feller v. State, 637 So. 2d 911, 915 (Fla.1994); Ingrassia v. State, 747 So. 2d 445, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). . 398 So. 2d at 852, 854. We note that the objection at trial did not include the Confrontation Clause as grounds, and the appeal does not so argue. See State v. Contreras, 979 So. 2d 896 (Fla.2008). Our holding today is b…
-
Hyre v. State, 240 So. 3d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1994)
- Garcia v. State, 659 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Reynolds v. State, 660 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)