SIMMIE WILLIAMS, 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.
The appellate court reversed a conviction, finding that the trial court improperly admitted a child victim's video deposition into evidence. The court held that the deposition did not meet the requirements for admission as impeachment evidence or under the exception for child victim statements.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in admitting the video deposition. The deposition was not admissible for impeachment because the child did not testify in a manner that conflicted with her deposition, and it did not qualify under the specific exception for child victim statements.
[1] A video deposition of a child-victim is inadmissible without compliance with the provisions of section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, which permits admission of such state…
[2] Out-of-court statements of a witness that may conflict with other out-of-court statements of the witness properly admitted under section 90.803(23) cannot be admitted as…
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“We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a video deposition of the child-victim.”
Establishes the court's main finding regarding the improper admission of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state called the child victim as a witness, but she refused to answer most questions. The trial court admitted a video deposition of the child, wh…
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 Trustworthiness Of Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a video deposition of the child-victim. Cf. Lacue v. State, 562 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
We reject the state’s contention that the deposition was admissible under the provisions of section 90.608, Florida Statutes (1987), for impeachment purposes. The child, although called by the state as a witness, simply failed to respond to numerous questions by the state. She was not subjected to questions by the defense. This appearance before the jury did not justify admission of her deposition without compliance with the provisions of section 90.803(23) of the evidence code which per mits, under prescribed and limited circumstances, the admission of statements of child victims. No claim is asserted here that the statement was qualified under section 90.803(23).
In fact, the trial court expressly noted that the circumstances under which the deposition was given undermined its trustworthiness.
We also reject the state’s claim that the deposition was admissible because of the admission of testimony by the child’s mother concerning statements made to her by the child. The mother’s testimony was admitted after compliance with, and pursuant to, the provisions of section 90.803(23).
We reject the state’s contention that otherwise inadmissible hearsay statements may be admitted to “impeach” admissible statements.
We hold that it is not proper to admit as impeachment under section 90.-608, out of court statements of a witness that may conflict with other out of court statements of the witness properly admitted under section 90.803(23). In our view, such a construction of the impeachment exception to the hearsay rule would undermine the purposes of both the basic hearsay rule and the limited exception thereto set out in section 90.803(23).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that a new trial be conducted in accord herewith.
ANSTEAD, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.