CALVIN LEWIS OVERHOLT, JR., 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.
Overholt was convicted of battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child after the victim testified from behind a white screen rather than via closed-circuit television as permitted by statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court's shielding method violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and was not authorized by Florida law.
The trial court's use of a white screen to shield the victim from the defendant's direct view was not authorized by statute and was inherently prejudicial, violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The court affirmed the denial of Overholt's motion for judgment of acquittal on the molestation charge but reversed his convictions due to the unauthorized shielding method.
[1] Placing a screen between a defendant and a child victim during testimony in open court, which prevents the defendant from seeing the victim directly, violates the defenda…
[2] A trial court's use of a screen to shield a victim from a defendant's view during testimony is not an authorized procedure under Florida Statute § 92.54 and is inherently…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The method of shielding employed by the trial court to shield the victim from the defendant is not authorized by the statute and was inherently prejudicial.”
Establishes that the white screen method violated both statutory requirements and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, the child victim testified from behind a large white screen that blocked Overholt's direct view, though he could see the victim's testim…
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 Sixth Amendment Right To Confront Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
Calvin Overholt, Jr., appeals his convictions for battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child under the age of twelve. Citing to our decision in McLaughlin v. State, 79 So.3d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), Overholt argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed a screen to be placed between the victim and Overholt while the victim testified in open court during his jury trial. We agree and reverse his convictions and sentence. Overholt also argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of lewd and lascivious molestation, because the State failed to prove that Overholt touched the victim’s genital area. We conclude, without further comment, that the trial court did not err when it denied Overholt’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
During the trial, the victim testified in court from behind a large white screen. The court explained that the defense counsel was present and could ask the victim any questions during cross examination. Overholt was also present and could hear the victim’s testimony as the child victim testified. However, Overholt was blocked from seeing the victim directly as he testified. The court explained that there was a camera and it broadcasted the victim’s testimony on a large television screen for Overholt to see in real time as the victim testified. The victim recounted Overholt’s acts which resulted in the charges being brought.
On appeal Overholt argues that the conditions under which the victim testified violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him and otherwise denied him a fair trial. Overholt argues that the court should have followed the procedure of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2012), and used a closed circuit television.1 McLaughlin is on point. The method of shielding employed by the trial court to shield the victim from the defendant is not authorized by the statute and was inherently prejudicial. McLaughlin, 79 So.3d at 228-29 (citing State v. Parker, 276 Neb. 661, 757 N.W.2d 7, 18-19 (2008)).
Reversed and Remanded for a new trial.
GROSS, J., and HANZMAN, MICHAEL, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Overholt, 140 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 2014)…PERRY, J. We initially accepted review of the decisions in Overholt v. State, 110 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), and Oliver v. State, 125 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), based on direct and express conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In light of the State’s suggestion of mootness, we dismiss review of the decision in Overholt as m…
-
Vance Jerome Farmer v. State, 128 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…oy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1021, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988); McLaughlin v. State, 79 So. 3d 226, 228-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Oliver v. State, 125 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), rev. granted, 122 So. 3d 869 (Fla.2013); Overholt v. State, 110 So. 3d 530, 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), rev. granted, 122 So. 3d 869 (Fla.2013). Petitioner acknowledges that no objection to the use of the screen was lodged at trial and trial counsel had agreed [*250] to the use of the screen. The issue was not preserved for…
-
Vance Jerome Farmer v. State, 180 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…a fair trial and may constitute reversible error if preserved for appeal. See McLaughlin v. State, 79 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Oliver v. State, 125 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), rev. dismissed, 140 So. 3d 995 (Fla.2014); Overholt v. State, 110 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), [*1060] rev. dismissed, 140 So. 3d 995 (Fla.2014); see also Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988); Hughes v. State, 819 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). However, Farmer has not cited, and we have not…
Authorities Cited
- McLAUGHLIN v. State, 79 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)