S.C., A CHILD, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a delinquency adjudication because the trial judge failed to adequately inquire into whether a four-year-old alleged victim possessed a moral sense of duty to tell the truth before finding her competent to testify.
A trial judge must conduct an adequate inquiry into a child witness's moral sense of duty to tell the truth before determining competency, and failure to do so requires reversal.
[1] A trial judge must conduct an adequate competency examination of a child witness that specifically addresses whether the child possesses a moral sense of duty to tell the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA child was adjudicated delinquent based partly on testimony from a four-year-old alleged victim. The trial judge found the child competent to testify…
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 Competency Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant argues, in this appeal of an order adjudicating him a delinquent child, the trial judge erred in determining that the four year old alleged victim was competent to testify. Appellant also claims the trial judge erred in admitting child hearsay testimony through the child’s mother and a treating physician. Because we decide the first issue in favor of appellant, we need not reach these additional claims.
When the competency of a child witness is at issue, as it was here, the trial judge must determine whether the child is capable of observing, recohecting, and narrating facts, and whether the child has a moral sense of the duty to tell the truth. See Griffin v. State, 526 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lloyd v. State, 524 So. 2d 396, 400 (Fla.1988). Here, the trial judge failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether the alleged child victim possessed a moral sense of duty to tell the truth prior to finding her competent to testify. Seccia v. State, 689 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding for a new trial when the trial judge failed to conduct a sufficient competency examination to establish a child witness was capable of observing, recollecting, and narrating facts, and had a moral sense of duty to tell the truth). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s adjudication and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BARFIELD, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Otto Black v. State, 864 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…he truth. Id. at 753. We have consistently applied this test. See, e.g., Wade v. State, 586 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Seccia v. State, 689 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Delacruz v. State, 734 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); S.C. v. State, 837 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In this case, the alleged child victim was 4 years old when the offense was allegedly committed, and 5 when she testified at the trial. Having carefully reviewed the cursory questions asked by the trial court, we conclude that…
Authorities Cited
- Lloyd v. State, 524 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1988)
- Griffin v. State, 526 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Seccia v. State, 689 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)