ALLEN THOMAS LUDA, 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.
Allen Thomas Luda appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a child and indecent assault, raising four issues including courtroom closure during victim testimony, suppression of statements, hearsay evidence, and constitutional challenges to the Sexual Predators Act. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the issues either unpersuasive or previously resolved.
The court affirmed the trial court, finding Issues I, II, and III unpersuasive. Regarding Issue IV, the court determined the Florida Sexual Predators Act is constitutional, citing its recent decision in Reyes v. State.
[1] A party seeking to close a hearing must satisfy four prerequisites: an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced, closure no broader than necessary, consideration of re…
[2] A defendant can waive the right to a public trial by failing to object to courtroom closure.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“before a trial court orders closure, it must satisfy the four prerequisites enunciated in Waller v. Georgia”
Establishes the legal standard for courtroom closure in cases involving constitutional public trial rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuda was convicted of one count of sexual battery upon a child less than twelve years old and three counts of indecent assault. During trial, the cour…
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 Right To A Public Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
ROSENBERG, ROBERT A., Associate Judge.
Allen Thomas Luda appeals his conviction and sentence and the denial of his Motion For New Trial. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(A) and 9.140(b)(1)(A). Luda was convicted of one count of sexual battery upon a child less than twelve by a person eighteen years old or older and three counts of indecent assault.
Luda raises four issues on appeal:
I. The trial court reversibly erred in clearing the courtroom when minor victims testified.
II. The trial court reversibly erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress his September 22 statements to police.
III. The trial court reversibly erred by allowing the State to elicit hearsay from an expert, in sexual abuse examination, which identified appellant as the perpetrator named by a minor victim and included her accusatory statements.
IV. The Florida Sexual Predators Act is unconstitutional.
This court is unpersuaded by appellant’s contentions on issues I1, II and III. On issue IV, this court has recently determined that the Florida Sexual Predators Act, section 775.21, Florida Statutes, is constitutional. See Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
STONE and POLEN, JJ., concur. . Since the right to a public trial is a constitutional right, courts have held that before a trial court orders closure, it must satisfy the four prerequisites enunciated in Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). First, the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced. Second, the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest. Third, the trial court must consider a reasonable alternative to closing the proceedings. And, fourth, the court must make findings adequate to support the closure. See Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Compare Clements v. State, 742 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).`
A defendant, however, can waive his right to a public trial by failing to object. See Evans v. State, 808 So. 2d 92 (Fla.2001); see also Alvarez v. State, 827 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
In the instant case, Luda's attorney generally objected to the closure. But, he did not request that Luda's family members be allowed to remain in the courtroom and did not draw the trial court’s attention to the language of section 918.16, Florida Statutes (1998), that exempts the parties' immediate families from exclusion from the courtroom. An objection must be specific enough to apprise the trial judge of the putative error and to preserve the issue for intelligent review on appeal. See Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509, 511 (Fla.1982); see also Avila v. State, 781 So. 2d 413, 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that an issue is preserved for appeal if the attorney’s articulated concern is sufficiently specific to inform the trial court of the alleged error); Minor v. State, 763 So. 2d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (holding that appellant provided only general objections which, for the most part, did not give the trial court the opportunity to address the complaint he now makes on appeal).
In the matter before this court, the issue of closure was not specifically preserved for appellate review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Therrien v. State, 859 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ard to retro-activity. The Fourth District held to the contrary in Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816, 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). See also White v. State, - So. 2d -, -, 2003 WL 22399730, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct.22, 2003) (following Reyes); Luda v. State, 860 So. 2d 457, 458, 2003 WL 22336133, at *1 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 15, 2003) (same); Jones v. State, 855 So. 2d 715, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (same); Carver v. State, 854 So. 2d 272, 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (same).…
-
Schultz v. Waldemar K. Schickedanz, 884 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ue for intelligent review on appeal.” Starks v. State, 627 So. 2d 1194, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (citing Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)). An objection must be specific enough to inform the trial court of the alleged error. Luda v. State, 860 So. 2d 457, 458 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). There was no objection in this case, let alone anything to apprise the court of the specific error claimed on appeal. We therefore find that the issue has not been preserved. We affirm as to all other issues not speci…
-
Jones v. State, 883 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ailure to object to closing of courtroom is waiver of right to public trial) .... ” Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 936, 111 S.Ct. 2661, 115 L.Ed.2d 808 (1991); see Alvarez v. State, 827 So. 2d at 274 (quoting Peretz); see also Luda v. State, 860 So. 2d 457, 458 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Petition denied. FLETCHER, J., concurs. . The charged crimes occurred in 1998. . Since the statute regulates trial procedure, the version in effect at the time of the trial is controlling, not the version in effect…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984)
- Williams v. State, 414 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1982)
- Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Evans v. State, 808 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2001)
- Avila v. State, 781 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Alvarez v. State, 827 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Pritchett v. State, 566 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Clements v. State, 742 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Minor v. State, 763 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)