JA'HAIRY JABREA CARROLL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's conviction in a criminal case where a rebuttal witness testified via Zoom. The court upheld the trial judge's decision under established precedent (Harrell v. State), though a concurring justice expressed concerns about the constitutionality of remote testimony outside the Harrell framework.
The trial court did not err in permitting remote testimony via Zoom under the Harrell v. State framework. The decision was proper because it was justified by case-specific findings of necessity and satisfied the other elements of confrontation (oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor).
[1] A trial court may permit a rebuttal witness to testify via Zoom if the decision is justified by the necessities of the case and satisfies the requirements of oath, cross-…
[2] The Florida Supreme Court's precedent in Harrell v. …
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 trial court's decision to permit presentation of testimony via Zoom "must (1) be justified, on a case-specific finding, based on . . . necessities of the case and (2) must satisfy the other three elements of confrontation—oath, cross-examination, and observation of the witness's demeanor."”
Sets forth the two-part Harrell test for permitting remote testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA criminal defendant (Carroll) was tried in Florida state court. During the trial, the State of Florida presented a rebuttal witness who testified via…
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 Right To Confrontation cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
_____________________________
JA’HAIRY JABREA CARROLL,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. London M. Kite, Judge.
William Mallory Kent, of Kent & McFarland, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Amanda A. Uwaibi, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
April 17, 2025
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
EDWARDS, C.J., concurs. MAKAR, J., concurs, with opinion. SOUD, J., concurs, with opinion.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
MAKAR, J., concurring.
Because the Confrontation Clause error in this case was harmless, affirmance is warranted.
SOUD, J., concurring.
Based on the still-binding precedent established by the Florida Supreme Court in Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364, 1369 (Fla. 1998), the distinguished trial judge in this case did not err in permitting the State of Florida’s lone rebuttal witness to testify via Zoom. Considering the necessities of the case, including, inter alia, the inability of the rebuttal witness to be present in person and the limited nature of his testimony, the trial court’s decision satisfies the criteria set forth in Harrell.1 As a result, I concur in affirming the trial court.
That said, but for Harrell,2 which extended Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), beyond the context of child victims of sexual abuse testifying via live closed-circuit television, I would conclude that testimony presented via Zoom, as in this case, fails to pass constitutional muster. The esteemed Florida trial judges presiding over criminal cases—whose dockets and trial calendars undoubtedly reflect the substantial and increasing workload of the judiciary in the third most populous state in our Republic—must with caution indulge any notion that remote testimony is a worthy substitute for in-person confrontation of an accused by the
witnesses against him that is secured by both the Sixth Amendment3 and the Florida Constitution.4
This remains true even in the mobile, post-pandemic society in which we find ourselves—where “remote” has become commonplace. Yet, nothing is “common” about the work of Florida courts. Foundational constitutional safeguards, that secure to each of us the liberty granted by our Creator, may not be sacrificed on the altar of convenience. For that which may be efficient for counsel may well fail to be constitutionally effective for an accused. See Harrell, 709 So. 2d at 1372 (“Nevertheless, technological changes in the courtroom cannot come at the expense of the basic individual rights and freedoms secured by our constitutions.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990)
- Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1998)