E.A.C., A CHILD
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.
A Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding whether testimony by witnesses via Zoom during a juvenile adjudicatory hearing violates a child defendant's due process rights.
The court granted the motion to certify the question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court, finding that the majority decision addressed a question worthy of supreme court review.
[1] A court may certify a question of great public importance to the supreme court for discretionary review.
[2] The supreme court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of district courts that pass upon a question certified to be of great public importance.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Do witnesses appearing in a juvenile adjudicatory hearing by Zoom during a global pandemic constitute a per se violation of the defendant's due process rights?”
The certified question of great public importance referred to the Florida Supreme Court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.A.C., a child, was involved in a juvenile adjudicatory hearing in Palm Beach County's Circuit Court. The case involved testimony from witnesses who …
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 Certified Question Of Great Public Importance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the motion to certify a question of great public importance.
The supreme court has discretionary jurisdiction to review decisions of the district courts which pass upon a question certified to be of great public importance. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v). The majority decision passes upon such a question. We therefore certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance.
Do witnesses appearing in a juvenile adjudicatory hearing by Zoom during a global pandemic constitute a per se violation of the defendant’s due process rights?
MAY, CIKLIN, and LEVINE, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.T. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 338 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…have authorized remote appearances in other similar high-stakes contexts, including at probation violation hearings, delinquency trials, and sentencing hearings. See Clarington v. State, 314 So. 3d 495, 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); E.A.C. v. State, 324 So. 3d 499, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Brown v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D190, D193 (Fla. 4th DCA Jan. 12, 2022). Similarly, several courts from other jurisdictions have determined that, for constitutional purposes, a meaningful opportunity to be heard may b…1 / 2
-
J.T.B. v. State, 345 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…to proceed with a remotely conducted adjudicatory 2 We are cognizant that the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently determined that a remote adjudicatory hearing did not violate the due process rights of a juvenile accused. See E.A.C. v. State, 324 So. 3d 499, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). There, however, the juvenile, attorneys, and judge were present in the courtroom, and the trial court conducted a threshold inquiry. Id. at 501–02. hearing. The trial court overruled the objection but failed to render…
-
Jackson v. City of S. BAY, 358 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…faith exception. See § 119.07(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (stating that public records custodian must respond “in good faith” to requests to inspect or copy records). Further, there is no pandemic related exception to the constitution. See E.A.C. v. State, 324 So. 3d 499, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (Levine, C.J., concurring). Indeed, Executive Order 20-69, which was issued on March 20, 2020 in response to the pandemic, expressly recognized that the Sunshine Law remained in effect: “This Executive Order does not waive…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence