JULIO MALAVE
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.
Admission of a Child Protection Team investigator's statement from a disabled adult victim violated the Confrontation Clause because the statement was testimonial and the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. The error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to counts charging sexual battery and incest, but not harmless as to counts charging lewd or lascivious molestation where the CPT statement was not cumulative to other evidence.
[1] A statement made by a disabled adult to a Child Protection Team investigator is testimonial hearsay under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause when the circumstances…
[2] Admission of testimonial hearsay in violation of the Confrontation Clause is subject to harmless error analysis, and the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when…
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“Where the admissibility of testimonial evidence is at issue, the Confrontation Clause forbids its admission unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.”
Establishes the constitutional standard for admitting testimonial hearsay under the Confrontation Clause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMalave was charged with multiple sexual offenses against his twenty-seven-year-old mentally disabled granddaughter after the victim's mother reported …
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 Reasonable Possibility Of Affecting Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JULIO MALAVE,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-3225
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed May3, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Mark S. Blechman, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Julio Malave, appeals the judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of sexual battery upon a mentally defective adult, one count of lewd or lascivious battery upon a disabled person, two counts of lewd or lascivious molestation of a disabled adult, one count of committing an unnatural or lascivious act, and one count of incest. We agree with Appellant that the trial court erred in admitting the
The State charged Appellant with several counts arising out of allegations that he had sexual relations with his twenty-seven-year-old, mentally disabled granddaughter, after the victim’s mother reported one incident to the police. The State filed its notice of intent to introduce the statement the victim made to the Child Protection Team (“CPT statement”). The State sought to introduce the statement under section 90.803(24), Florida Statutes (2017), which provides a hearsay exception for out-of-court statements of a disabled adult under certain circumstances. Appellant argued that pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the CPT statement should be excluded because its admission would violate his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.1 Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1994), and an analysis of the section 90.803 criteria. This was error. Where the admissibility of testimonial evidence is at issue, the Confrontation Clause forbids its admission unless the declarant is unavailable to testify
1 This issue was properly preserved for appellate review. See, e.g., Corona v. State, 64 So. 2d 1232, 1242 (Fla. 2011) (noting Crawford issue is preserved where it is timely raised and ruled on and apprises court of relief sought and basis for relief).
2 We disagree with Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in admitting his confession. There is sufficient corroborating evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding of trustworthiness. The trial court provided a detailed analysis of why it found the victim’s statements sufficiently trustworthy and reiterated it was relying on this
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. COHEN, LAMBERT, and SASSO, JJ., concur.
in finding Appellant’s confession admissible. In addition, the trial court noted it considered the victim’s mother's statement and the nature of Appellant’s confession.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Contreras, 979 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2008)
- Corona v. State, 64 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011)
- Blanton v. State, 978 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2008)
- Hernandez v. State, 946 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)