THOMAS HUGHES, 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.
Thomas Hughes was convicted of sexual battery in a position of familial authority and lewd and lascivious acts upon a child. On appeal, he challenged the admission of voice stress test results, the use of a partition between him and the minor victim, and the sufficiency of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding any errors harmless in light of Hughes's admissions to investigators.
The court affirmed the convictions, finding that any error regarding voice stress test references was harmless error due to Hughes's admissions. The trial court's use of a partition violated statutory requirements under section 92.54 and implicated the Confrontation Clause, but this error was also harmless given Hughes's admissions to investigators. The evidence was sufficient to convict.
[1] A trial court's error in admitting evidence of a failed voice stress test is harmless when the defendant has made admissions that independently support the conviction.
[2] A trial court's failure to make specific findings required by statute for the use of closed-circuit television testimony by a minor victim constitutes error.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“any error in that regard was clearly harmless in light of appellant's admission”
Establishes that admission by defendant renders error harmless regarding voice stress test evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas Hughes was charged and convicted by jury of sexual battery while in a position of familial authority and lewd and lascivious acts upon a 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 Confrontation Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
Appellant Thomas Hughes was charged and found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual battery while in a position of familial authority pursuant to section 794.011(8)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), and one count of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child pursuant to section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1997). Appellant argues that: (i) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to make references to the alleged failed results of Appellant’s voice stress test, (ii) the trial court erred by allowing a partition to be placed between the testifying minor victim and the defendant, and (iii) the evidence was insufficient to convict the defendant. We affirm.
First, to the extent that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to make references to the alleged failed results of Appellant’s voice stress test, it was harmless error because of Appellant’s admissions. See Carter v. State, 737 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(concluding that “any error in that regard was clearly harmless in light of appellant’s admission”).
On the second issue, we agree with Appellant that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1997)(permitting the use of closed circuit television in proceedings involving victims or witnesses under the age of 16). See Hopkins v. State, 682 So. 2d 1372, 1376 (Fla.l994)(holding that the trial court’s findings were insufficient under section 92.54(5)). Moreover, section 92.54 provides for the use of closed circuit television but not a partition. See generally Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1021, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988)(reversing judgment against defendant convicted of lascivious acts with a child and remanding for determination of whether the Confrontation Clause error was harmless; although the Iowa statute at issue permitted testimony by a child behind a screen in the courtroom, there were no individualized findings by the trial court that these particular witnesses needed special protection). However, this error by the trial court was harmless because of Appellant’s admissions. See Hopkins, 632 So. 2d at 1377 (holding that there was harmless error because appellant’s own admission to several investigators supported his conviction of sexual battery).
Finally, we find no merit to Appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to convict him.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McLAUGHLIN v. State, 79 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…prejudice, on the other hand, requires a showing by the defendant that there was an unacceptable risk of impermissible factors coming into play.” Id. (citations omitted). We begin our analysis by noting, as did our sister court in Hughes v. State, 819 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), that “section 92.54 provides for the use of closed circuit television but not a partition.”4 Id. at 816; see Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1020, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988) (stating that “[i]t is difficult to imagine a…
-
Flavio Tomas v. State, 126 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…termination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”). Even if the trial court erred by excluding the evidence above, the error was harmless because Tomas admitted to committing the crimes in his recorded interview. See Hughes v. State, 819 So. 2d 815, 815-16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that the two errors committed at trial were harmless because the defendant admitted to committing the lewd and lascivious acts upon the child). Affirmed. MAY, C.J., and CONNER, J„ concur. . Nelson v. State, 27…
-
Vance Jerome Farmer v. State, 180 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…2013), rev. dismissed, 140 So. 3d 995 (Fla.2014); Overholt v. State, 110 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), [*1060] rev. dismissed, 140 So. 3d 995 (Fla.2014); see also Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988); Hughes v. State, 819 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). However, Farmer has not cited, and we have not found, any authority stating that counsel is per se ineffective for failing to object to the use of a screen and cannot consent for reasonable strategic reasons. In evaluating clai…
Authorities Cited
- COY v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988)
- Turner v. State, 737 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Carter v. State, 737 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)