E.K. 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.
The trial court erred in denying the appellant the right to the last closing argument in a juvenile case.
The appellant, a juvenile, did not present any testimony but was denied the last closing argument by the trial court.…
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 Harmless Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s ruling, which permitted the State to have both first and last closing arguments, where Appellant did not present any testimony. It appears the trial court erroneously believed the recent enactment of section 918.19, Florida Statutes (2006), governed the order of closing arguments in juvenile cases. It does not.
Section 918.19, Florida Statutes applies only to the order of closing arguments in adult criminal cases. See id.; see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.381. In juvenile proceedings, a child offering no testimony other than his or her own, is entitled to concluding argument. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.110(d).
In this case, the arguments were made before the trial court sitting as the finder of fact. However, because the right to final closing argument is a vested procedural right, the error cannot be considered harmless. See Wike v. State, 648 So. 2d 683, 686 (Fla.1994); Freeman v. State, 846 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Consequently, Appellant’s adjudication of delinquency is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for additional proceedings.
BARFIELD, ALLEN, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.H. v. State, 969 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…half except his or her own shall be entitled to the concluding argument.” Section 918.19, Florida Statutes (2007), provides, however, that the prosecution may speak first and last during closing arguments in a criminal prosecution. In E.K. v. State, 963 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), this court held [*568] that in juvenile delinquency cases Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.110(d) governs. Further, “because the right to a final closing argument is a vested procedural right, the error cannot be considered…
-
D.B. v. State, 979 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…3.381. However, a juvenile delinquency case is not an adult criminal prosecution, and therefore, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.110(d) governs juvenile proceedings. See C.H. v. State, 969 So. 2d 567, 567-68 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); E.K. v. State, 963 So. 2d 309, 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The rule states that “[a] child offering no testimony in his or her own behalf except his or her own shall be entitled to the concluding argument.” Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.110(d). And because the right to present the concluding a…
-
J.C. v. State, 988 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…y review any decision of a district court of appeal ... that expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law.”). Appellant argues that two cases, E.K. v. State, 963 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and C.H. v. State, 969 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), expressly and directly conflict with the limited remedy set in place by this Court in D.B. See D.B., 979 So. 2d at 1121. We disagree. In C.H., the First District — after fin…
Authorities Cited
- Warfield Raymond Wike, Jr. v. State, 648 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1994)
- Stepphone Freeman v. State, 846 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)