CARLOS RUBEN FLORES, 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.
Carlos Flores appeals his conviction for Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, raising multiple constitutional and procedural challenges. The court affirms the conviction, focusing its opinion on rejecting Flores' argument that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the child victim competent to testify.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Y.T. competent to testify. The child demonstrated sufficient intelligence and sense of obligation to tell the truth under the two-part Lloyd test, and minor inconsistencies in her testimony did not demonstrate an inability to differentiate reality from fantasy.
[1] A trial court's determination of a child's competency to testify is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A child's competency to testify is evaluated based on their intelligence and their sense of obligation to tell the truth.
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“When the court is evaluating a child's competency, it applies a two-part test, based upon the child's: (1) intelligence and (2) sense of obligation to tell the truth.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining child witness competency that courts must apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlos Flores was convicted of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation. The key witness was a child victim, Y.T., whose competency to testify was challenged o…
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 Child Witness Competency cases and more on FLexlaw
Carlos Flores appeals his judgment and sentence for the crime of Lewd and Lascivious Molestation. Flores argues that: (1) the trial court improperly found that the victim was competent to testify; (2) his right to confrontation was violated by the trial court allowing the victim to testify by one-way closed circuit; (8) his right to a public trial was violated; and (4) the trial court erred by entering judgment and sentence for a crime not charged. We affirm, writing only to address Flores’ contention that the trial court erred when it found the victim competent to testify.
A determination of a child’s competency to testify is reviewed according to an abuse of discretion standard. Baker v. State, 674 So.2d 199, 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing Lloyd v. State, 524 So.2d 396 (Fla.1988)).
When the court is evaluating a child’s competency, it applies a two-part test, based upon the child’s: (1) intelligence and (2) sense of obligation to tell the truth. Lloyd, 524 So.2d at 400. Here, the trial court found the child witness Y.T. competent to testify after applying the proper two-part test in Lloyd. When questioned, Y.T. knew and articulated sufficient facts to demonstrate her intelligence. Baker, 674 So.2d at 200-01. Y.T. went beyond the facts in Baker, establishing that she remembered and articulated facts that occurred a year before the competency hearing. Y.T. also demonstrated that she could remember details in connection with what she had done on the day of the hearing, her favorite subject in school, her older sister’s age and that she was in a higher grade in school. She knew what country she was born in, where her uncle lived, and the place where the pertinent events occurred. Finally, Y.T. testified that she knew it was wrong to lie and that people get into trouble for lying.
We also find no merit to Flores’ assertion that inconsistencies in Y.T.’s testimony demonstrate her inability to differentiate reality from fantasy. While some inconsistencies existed in Y.T.’s testimony, like the inconsistencies in Lloyd, they were largely immaterial. Lloyd, 524 So.2d at 400.
On the record before us, we conclude that the trial judge did a thorough evaluation of Y.T., and we find no abuse of discretion in its conclusion that Y.T. was competent to testify.
Affirmed.
MAY, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawrence v. State, 149 So. 3d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…eding that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the erroneous jury instruction issue in his direct appeal, we dismissed Appellant’s habeas corpus petition raising that argument because it too was untimely. See Lawrence v. State, 92 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).1 AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions. LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and RAY, JJ., concur. . Appellant's direct appeal was pending when we issued our decision in Montgomery, holding that intent to kil…
Authorities Cited
- Lloyd v. State, 524 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1988)
- Baker v. State, 674 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)