STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
NATHAN PATRICK RYAN, 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.
Florida affirmed the trial court's grant of post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, but held that on retrial, the investigating detective may not testify regarding his opinion whether the sexual encounter was consensual or constituted sexual battery, as that is a question for the trier of fact.
A defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but on retrial the investigating detective may not offer an opinion on whether the sexual encounter was consensual or constituted sexual battery.
[1] On retrial of a sexual offense case, an investigating detective may not testify regarding his opinion whether the sexual encounter was consensual or constituted sexual ba…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“That issue is one for the trier of fact.”
The court explaining that whether the sexual encounter was consensual or constituted sexual battery is a question for the jury, not for Detective Voyles to opine upon.
Appellee was convicted of a sexual offense. The primary investigating detective, Voyles, held an opinion that the sexual encounter was consensual rath…
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 Opinion Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s motion for post-conviction *994relief, which found that Appellee is entitled to a new trial because he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of trial counsel.1 However, if a new trial is conducted;.and if Detective Voyles is called upon to testify, we agree with the State that he should not be asked nor permitted to state his opinion of whether the circumstances, as he knew them, amounted to consensual sex or some form of attempted sexual battery.2 That issue is one for the trier of fact. See Jackson v. State, 107 So.3d 328, 339-40 (Fla. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, EVANDER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.