D. A. B., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A 17-year-old juvenile appealed a waiver order transferring his delinquency case to adult criminal court, claiming he was denied the right to confront and cross-examine a court-appointed psychiatrist whose report was considered at the waiver hearing. The Florida appellate court affirmed the waiver, finding that defense counsel's statement that the judge could read the report "for its weight" constituted a waiver of confrontation rights.
The court held that defense counsel's statement permitting the judge to read the report "for its weight" without cross-examination constituted a waiver of the right to confrontation and cross-examination. The trial judge was under no duty to require the psychiatrist's presence, and the record contained no demand by counsel to have the psychiatrist present.
[1] A juvenile's right to confront and cross-examine the author of a psychiatric report at a waiver hearing can be waived by counsel's affirmative statements or failure to de…
[2] Counsel's instruction to a trial court to read a psychiatric report and "take it for its weight" without objection to its admission as evidence constitutes a waiver of th…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 child or his parents, guardians, or counsel shall have the right to examine these reports and to question the parties responsible for them at the hearing.”
Statutory right to confront and cross-examine psychiatrist at waiver hearing under Florida statute § 39.09(2)(e)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.A.B., age 17, was charged in juvenile delinquency proceedings with seven counts including sexual battery, assault, robbery, and sexual battery with …
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 Delinquency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant D.A.B., 17 years of age, in a petition for delinquency, was charged with 7 counts, including sexual battery, assault, robbery, and sexual battery with use of a deadly weapon. Subsequent thereto, the State moved the juvenile division of the circuit court for an order waiving its jurisdiction and certifying the case for trial as if D.A.B. were an adult. The juvenile court, after hearing, entered its order transferring jurisdiction of the case to the criminal division of the circuit court. It is from this order that D.A.B. takes his appeal.
The sole question raised by D.A.B. is whether or not he was deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine the court appointed psychiatrist whose report was read by the trial judge and argued by the prosecutor at the waiver hearing.
Section 39.09(2) (e), Fla.Stat., in part states:
“The child or his parents, guardians, or counsel shall have the right to examine these reports and to question the parties responsible for them at the hearing.”
Rule 8.110(b)(5), RJP, states:
“At this state of the hearing, the Court may accept in evidence social histories, and psychological and psychiatric reports, but the child and his counsel shall be entitled to examine such reports and, upon demand, to question the parties responsible for them.”
At the waiver hearing, the prosecutor requested the court to consider the report of the court appointed psychiatrist which was in the court file. The court inquired of counsel for D.A.B. if he objected, and counsel replied that the trial court had a right and was free to read it and “take it for its weight but not to be admitted as an exhibit. If such were the case I would ask the doctor to be brought before the court.” The court read the report but did not specifically admit the report as an exhibit although he did permit a portion of it to be read to him at closing argument.
We are of the opinion that when counsel for the appellant, D.A.B., advised the trial judge to read the report and “take it for its weight,” without cross examination, this was tantamount to a waiver of D.A.B.’s right of confrontation and cross examination of the psychiatrist. Under the circumstances as presented, the trial judge was under no duty to require the presence of the psychiatrist and the record is devoid of counsel’s demand to have him present. Appellant had the right under § 39.09 (2)(e), Fla.Stat., and Rule 8.110(b)(5), RJP, to examine the report prior to trial and call the psychiatrist as a witness if he so desired.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of R. J. B. v. State, 394 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…Re Adoption of Stinebaker, 382 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). DISMISSED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . See O. A. H. v. State, 332 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); R. W. v. State, 330 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); D. A. B. v. State, 329 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Gagliano v. State, 234 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).…