C.C., JR., A CHILD, 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.
Appellant's conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation was affirmed because the victim's out-of-court identification and trial testimony, believed by the fact-finder, provided sufficient evidence of guilt despite the victim's inability to recall the perpetrator's face at trial.
Out-of-court identification and victim testimony are sufficient to support a conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation when the fact-finder credits the victim's account over exculpatory defense testimony.
[1] Out-of-court identification of a defendant by a crime victim is sufficient to support a conviction for lewd and lascivious molestation even when the victim cannot recall…
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“the determination of whether appellant's 'act was in fact lewd and lascivious' is a question of fact and is based upon the circumstances of each individual case.”
Court explaining that lewdness is a fact-specific determination under W.R.H. v. State.
A child victim testified against appellant for lewd and lascivious molestation but could not remember the perpetrator's face at trial. Appellant prese…
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 Out-Of-Court Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was found guilty of the charge of lewd and lascivious molestation, and sentenced to a term of probation. The only question raised by this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him. Although the young victim could not remember what the perpetrator’s face looked like at the time of trial, her out-of-court identification was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of guilt. See State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1978). With respect to all other issues, we have considered the briefs and reviewed the trial transcript. “[T]he determination of whether appellant’s ‘act was in fact lewd and lascivious’ is a question of fact and is based upon the circumstances of each individual case.” W.R.H. v. State, 763 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675, 679 (Fla.1971)). Although appellant offered several witnesses whose testimony, if believed, would have exonerated him, the trier of fact chose to believe the victim. The victim’s testimony was sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt, and we cannot substitute our judgment for the fact-finder’s on issues of witness credibility. See Windom v. State, 886 So. 2d 915, 927 (Fla.2004) (“This Court has held that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, and likewise on the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to the evidence so long as the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence.”).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.G. v. State, 989 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…. Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495, 507 (Fla. 2005); Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1999). We find that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State is sufficient to uphold Appellant’s adjudication. See C.C., Jr. v. State, 943 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that a victim’s out-of-court identification was sufficient to support adjudication). The arresting officer’s testimony that Appellant “looked familiar” and his identification of her as “at least a nine” on a scale of one…
-
D.E. v. State, 967 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…evidence to support the trial court’s determination. We affirm. Here, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings and we do not disturb the trial court’s credibility determinations. See, e.g., C.C., Jr. v. State, 943 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Affirmed.…
-
Fowler v. State, 987 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…2008) (discussing an inability to testify altogether). However, case law does establish that a witness’s ability to point the defendant out in court is not a necessary component of the case. See, e.g., Freber, 366 So. 2d at 428; C.C., Jr. v. State, 943 So. 2d 905, 905 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The identity of the perpetrator can therefore be inferred from circumstantial evidence, and the lack of direct, in-court identification, goes to the strength of the case. See C.C., 943 So. 2d at 905-06 (“[T]he trier of fact…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1978)
- Windom v. State, 886 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2004)
- W.R.H. v. State, 763 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)