DUSTIN SLAWINSKI, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness to testify via live satellite video when the witness was needed to care for his ailing father and run his business.
Appellant was convicted of burglary and dealing in stolen property. A key witness, the victim's son, testified via live satellite video from Michigan …
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 Abuse Of Discretion (Standard Of Review) cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property. He argues that the trial court should not have allowed a witness who lived in Michigan to testify by live satellite video, but we affirm.
Appellant was charged with burglarizing a condominium owned by the father of the witness whose testimony is in dispute. There was no objection to the father, who was suffering from physical problems due to recent heart surgery, testifying live by satellite video from Michigan. The father’s son, who was also a witness, was taking care of his father in Michigan and running his father’s business.
Under Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1998), a party who wishes to present the testimony of a witness by satellite transmission must demonstrate that the witness is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court or unable to attend the trial, and that the testimony is material and necessary. The fact that a witness resides in a state other than Florida does not mean that the witness is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Florida. Lima v. State, 732 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The issue here is whether the victim’s son was unable to attend.
The trial court concluded that, because of the frail condition of the victim, which necessitated that the victim’s son care for him personally as well as run his business, the requirement that the witness be unable to attend was satisfied.
In Lima the witness, who lived in another state, had a leg injury and two small children. She would not have been able to travel to the trial without the assistance of a third party. The third district concluded that there was no abuse of discretion, which is the standard of review under Harrell, in allowing the witness to testify by satellite video. We find no abuse of discretion in this case either. We have considered the other issue raised by appellant and find it to be without merit. Affirmed.
STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DOE v. State, 210 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…audiovisual equipment at trials address the issue of the admissibility of testimony by witnesses from remote locations, not the remote appearance of the presiding officer. See, e.g., Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1998); Slawinski v. State, 895 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Lima v. State, 732 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Michael R. Rocha, Going Too Far in United States v. Yates: The Eleventh Circuit’s Application of Maryland v. Craig to Two-Way Videoconferencing, 36 Stetson L. Rev. 365 (2007); M…
-
State v. Villarreal, 990 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…all not be read in evidence on behalf of the defendant.”3 (Emphasis added). Thus, to allow a defense witness to testify via satellite, the trial court must not only determine that subsection (1) of rule 3.190(j) is satisfied, see Slawinski v. State, 895 So. 2d 483, 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“Under Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1998), a party who wishes to present the testimony of a witness by satellite transmission must demonstrate that the witness is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court o…
-
Knox v. State, 98 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…and the state’s inability to remedy such hardship. See, e.g., .Gonzalez, 971 So. 2d at 891) (trial court did not err in allowing the state to admit a witness’s perpetuated testimony due to the witness’s advanced age and illness); Slawinski v. State, 895 So. 2d 483, 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an out-of-state witness to testify by live satellite video because the witness’s father’s frail condition required the witness to care for his father personally and run h…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1998)
- Lima v. State, 732 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)