R.U., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, 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 court denied the motion for rehearing and affirmed its prior decision, finding no conflict with cited cases and clarifying the statutory basis for its ruling.
The case involved the admissibility of hearsay statements, specifically concerning corroborative evidence in a child abuse case. The court had previou…
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 Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(24) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the motion for rehearing and the motion for rehearing en banc.
We find no conflict with Zmijewski v. B’Nai Torah Congregation of Boca Raton, Inc., 639 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The corroborative evidence in that case included a physician-specialist in child sexual abuse who concluded “that at a minimum the child’s penis and anus had been fondled.” Id. at 1023. Also, a psychologist in Zmijewski opined that the “child presented the psychological profile of a child who had experienced sexual abuse.” Id. In this case, the family therapist’s more subjective impressions did not rise to such a level of specificity concerning the abuse alleged.
Also, Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), does not control this case. The original opinion in this case was not decided on constitutional grounds as to whether the hearsay violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Rather, this case was based on the wording of section 90.803(23)(a)2.b., Florida Statutes (2000). The state’s concerns about the wisdom of the corroboration requirement are properly addressed to the legislature.
Finally, we address the state’s suggestion that we follow federal case law for “the proposition that hearsay statements should be admitted simply if they are. deemed to be reliable.” Wright involved a state statute similar to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(24), the “catch-all” exception to the hearsay rule, which allows a trial judge to recognize additional exceptions to the hearsay rule whenever sufficient circumstantial guarantees of reliability are present. Charles W. EhrhaRdt, Florida Evidence § 802.1 (1999 ed.). The drafters of the Florida Evidence Code did not include a similar provision in the Florida Code. As Professor Ehrhardt has written:
The drafters of the [Florida] [c]ode felt that one of the chief reasons for the adoption of a code of evidence was to lend certainty and predictability to the law of evidence. The inclusion of a “wide-open” or “catch-all” exception to the hearsay rule, similar to the ones in the Federal Rules, would have negated this purpose.
Id.
DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2005)…bility of Romines’ statements. Unlike the Federal Rules of Evidence, Florida has not adopted a "catch-all” reliability exception for the admission of hearsay. See State v. Smith, 573 So. 2d 306, 315 (Fla.1990); R.U. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 782 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So. 2d 74, 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). . Indeed, Fitzpatrick did not assert that Yar-borough’s identification was the product of suggestion. . Testimony was presented by Young that Ro-mines was seen ret…
-
Blandenburg v. State, 890 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…c rule of inadmissibility for hearsay statements. Unlike the federal rules, the Florida Evidence Code contains no “residual” exception for statements that the trial court finds are reliable. See Fed.R.Evid. 807; R.U. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 782 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 802.1 (1999 ed.), for the proposition that Florida’s refusal to adopt a “ ‘catch-all’ exception to the hearsay rule” is consistent with “ ‘one of the chief reasons for the ado…
-
Bemenderfer v. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 955 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…lend certainty and predictability to the law of evidence. The inclusion of a ‘wide-open’ or ‘catch-all’ exception to the hearsay rule, similar to the ones in the Federal Rules, would have negated this purpose.” R.U. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 782 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Similarly, in this case FREC’s use of a “catch-all” may be authorized by section 475.25(1)(e), but the manner of its use would negate the purpose of section 455.2273(2) that penalties be imposed under a policy of distingu…
Authorities Cited
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990)
- Zmijewski v. B'Nai Torah Congregation OF Boca Raton, Inc., 639 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)