STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
STEVIE JOHNSON, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida appealed a trial court order excluding a video recording of a drug transaction under Crawford v. Washington. The appellate court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and reversed, holding that the video depicted the criminal act itself rather than testimonial statements and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause.
The video recording is not testimonial evidence and Crawford is not implicated because the video depicts the criminal act itself rather than a statement made after the crime to prove a past event. Therefore, the trial court's order excluding the video violated a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
[1] A video recording depicting a criminal act itself is not testimonial evidence for Confrontation Clause purposes.
[2] Statements are testimonial when the primary purpose of an interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
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“the video does not involve a statement made after the crime to prove a past event. Rather, the video depicts the criminal act itself. Thus, it is not testimonial, and Crawford is not implicated.”
Establishes the core holding that recordings of the actual criminal conduct are not testimonial and do not implicate the 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 intelligenceStevie Johnson was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver or sell. The defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude a video record…
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 Testimonial Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
The state appeals an order granting the defendant’s motion in limine and excluding a video recording of a drug transaction. We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari1 and grant the petition.
The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver or sell. The defendant filed a motion in li-mine seeking to exclude a video of the drug transaction involving the defendant and a confidential informant on the grounds that it was testimonial evidence inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The trial court granted the motion and excluded the video.
“To obtain certiorari relief from a pretrial evidentiary ruling, the state must show that the ruling was a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Sandoval, 125 So.3d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).
In Crawford, the United States Supreme Court held that out-of-court testimonial statements by a witness are barred under the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. While Crawford did not establish a precise definition for the term “testimonial,” the Court provided some guidance, holding that, at a minimum, statements are testimonial if the declarant made them “at a preliminary hearing, be*239fore a grand jury, or at a former trial; and [during] police interrogations.” 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. A statement is also testimonial if it was “made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Id. at 52, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citation omitted). In Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), the Supreme Court elaborated that statements are “testimonial” when “the primary purpose of [an] interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.”
In the instant case, the exclusion of the video violated a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The video does not involve a statement made after the crime to prove a past event. Rather, the video depicts the criminal act itself. Thus, it is not testimonial, and Crawford is not implicated. See Davis, 547 U.S. at 826-27, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (holding that 911 tape describing events as they were actually happening was not testimonial and not violative of Crawford); United States v. Underwood, 446 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th Cir.2006) (holding that recorded conversations between codefen-dant and confidential informant for the purchase of cocaine were not testimonial).
Accordingly, we grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Petition granted.
WARNER, GROSS and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vantavia B. Jackson-Johnson v. State, 188 So. 3d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…e statements”). Our conclusion also is consistent with our previous cases in which we have held that a person’s actions or statements are [*142] not testimonial merely because those statements were recorded by law enforcement. See State v. Johnson, 128 So. 3d 237, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) .(video of a drug transaction involving the defendant and a confidential informant did not involve a statement, made after the crime to prove a past event, but depicted the criminal act' itself, and so was not testimonial);…
-
Weaver v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…. 1982) (“A . . . picture, whether made by hand of man or by photography, verified as a true representation of the subject about which testimony is offered, is admissible in evidence to assist the jury in understanding the case.”); State v. Johnson, 128 So. 3d 237, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (“[T]he video depicts the criminal act itself. Thus, it is not testimonial.”); Hillsborough Cty. v. Lovelace, 673 So. 2d 917, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (“[T]he trial court improperly refused to admit photographs without the ph…
-
Hagans v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Putnam County) (M.D. Fla. 2023)…x. B. The state noted the CI was unavailable to testify and sought the admissibility of the video and audio in its entirety. Id. at 58. The state relied on four cases: (1) Wagner v. State, 707 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); (2) State v. Johnson, 128 So. 3d 237, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (per curiam); (3) Bowens v. State, 80 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (per curiam); and (4) State v. Holland, 76 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) [sic]. Ex. B at 58-59. The court heard argument and some testimony and…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006)
- United States v. Darin Underwood, 446 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2006)
- McPHADDER v. State, 475 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Eusebio Hernandez, 875 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- State v. Sandoval, 125 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)