RAYMOND SPRINGER, 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.
Raymond Springer appeals his conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation of a 10-year-old girl, raising four issues: courtroom closure, admission of victim's videotaped statement, DNA sample requirements, and sexual predator designation. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding all arguments meritorious and certifying conflict with another district court on the sexual predator designation issue.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds. Courtroom closure did not violate fair trial rights per precedent in Clements v. State. Admission of the videotape did not constitute abuse of discretion under section 90.803(23). DNA sample requirements do not violate Fourth Amendment protections per L.S. v. State. Sexual predator designation does not violate due process rights.
[1] Partial closure of a courtroom during a victim's testimony, conducted in accordance with statute, does not violate the right to a fair and open public trial.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting a victim's videotaped statement into evidence after the victim has testified, when such admission is authorized b…
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“Mr. Springer first argues that the partial closure of the courtroom in accordance with section 918.16, Florida Statutes (2002), during the testimony of the victim denied him a right to a fair and open public trial.”
Establishes the primary issue regarding courtroom closure and 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 intelligenceRaymond Springer was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation of a 10-year-old girl in violation of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes. During…
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 Sexual Predator Designation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Springer appeals the judgment and sentence growing out of his conviction of lewd and lascivious molestation of a 10-year old girl in violation of section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2002). Mr. Springer raises four issues on this appeal. As we find that none are meritorious, however, we affirm.
Mr. Springer first argues that the partial closure of the courtroom in accordance with section 918.16, Florida Statutes (2002), during the testimony of the victim denied him a right to a fair and open public trial. This issue was previously addressed by this court in Clements v. State, 742 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), which we view as dispositive.
Mr. Springer next contends that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the State to play the videotaped statement of the victim to the jury after the victim had testified. The trial court admitted the videotape pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2002).1 Under similar circumstances the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction for sexual battery in Mikler v. State, 829 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We concur with the reasoning expressed in that decision.
The third issue presented by Mr. Springer posits that the requirement that he give DNA samples as required by section 943.325, Florida Statutes (2002), violates his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches. This issue was resolved by the First District Court of Appeal in L.S. v. State, 805 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), review denied, 821 So. 2d 297 (Fla.2002). As we agree with our sister court in this regard, we find no error. The final issue presented argues that Mr. Springer’s designation as a sexual predator violates his due process rights. We have addressed this issue in Rickman v. State, 871 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and have concluded that the designation does not offend due process. As we did in Rickman and Martin, however, we certify conflict with Espindo-la v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W„ THOMPSON, and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Both parties agree that Crawford v. Washington, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), is inapplicable to the present case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smalley v. State, 889 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ng convicted felons in a manner that cannot be circumvented, in apprehending criminals, in preventing recidivism and in absolving innocent persons charged with crimes. We continue to agree with these holdings, and their rationale. Springer v. State, 874 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). AFFIRMED. PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . . Section 782.04(2), Florida Statutes (2002). . In Williams v. State, 863 So. 2d 1189 (Fla.2003), the supreme court instructed that the test for harmful error is not a(l) sufficienc…
-
Morris v. State, 909 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…inst unreasonable searches and seizures; defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in blood samples that outweighed state’s interest in apprehending criminals, preventing recidivism and absolving innocent persons);4 Springer v. State, 874 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA [*435] 2004) (statutory requirement that defendant, who was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation, provide DNA samples did not violate his fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful searches); Gonzalez v. State, 869 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Ferman Carlos Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Clements v. State, 742 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Eldred Salters v. State, 805 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Mikler v. State, 829 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- State v. Laban Jasper Earwood, 871 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)