Confrontation Clause

1,935 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,522 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Williams v. Wainwright
  39 C.C.A. 491· S.D. Fla.· 1984-01-12 ·cited 3×
  A habeas petitioner must present the substance of a federal constitutional claim to the state courts, including the factual and legal premises, to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
• McALLISTER v. Brown
  555 F.2d 1277· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the state was not required to disclose the informant's identity and that the admission of police testimony regarding the informant's statement was not the use of an involuntary confession.
• Maness v. Louie L. Wainwright
  528 F.2d 1381· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-18 ·cited 3×
• Wiley R. Hill v. State
  256 So. 2d 239· Fla. 2d DCA· 1972-01-05 ·cited 3×
  Wiley Hill appeals his conviction for uttering forged checks, arguing the trial court failed to advise him of his constitutional rights, specifically his right to remain silent. The court affirmed, holding that the right to remain silent is inapplicable to guilty pleas and that H
• Alford v. State
  413 So. 3d 132· Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-04-02 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The trial court properly admitted Farris's jailhouse phone call because it did not directly implicate Alford and was not a testimonial statement under the Confrontation Clause, thus not violating Bruton v. United States. Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported Alford's convi
• United States v. Holland
  117 F.4th 1352· 11th Cir.· 2024-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the exclusion of coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) does not require proof that the conspiracy was unlawful, only that the statements were made during and in furtherance of a joint venture.
• Gonzalez v. State
  343 So. 3d 166· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not commit fundamental error by conducting Gonzalez's probation violation and sentencing hearing remotely via Zoom, as Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180 was temporarily suspended by administrative order, adequate safeguards protected his right to counse
• J.T.B. v. State
  345 So. 3d 927· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-06-29 ·cited 2×
  This case addresses whether juvenile delinquency hearings conducted remotely via videoconferencing violate a juvenile's due process right to confrontation. The court held that such remote proceedings require case-specific findings of necessity to justify denying in-person confron
• Fla. Int'l Univ. v. Ramos
  335 So. 3d 1221· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-10-20 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Florida International University sought certiorari review after a circuit court quashed a student disciplinary decision finding academic misconduct. The court held that the student, Samantha Ramos, was denied due process when prohibited from questioning a witness about bias and m
• Anderson v. State
  46 Fla. L. Weekly S157· Fla. 2d DCA· 2021-07-30 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The appellate court reversed a felony driving while license suspended or revoked (DWLSR) conviction because the state failed to prove prior convictions with sufficient evidence. The court found that trial counsel's failure to object to this deficiency constituted ineffective assi
• Am. Towing of Miami, LLC v. Leonel Espinal
  45 Fla. L. Weekly D2073· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-02-10 ·cited 2×
  American Towing of Miami appealed from an order granting class certification in a case alleging violations of Florida Statute § 715.07(2)(a)(9), which prohibits towing companies from requiring liability releases as a condition of vehicle release. The court reversed the class cert
• Lee v. State
  268 So. 3d 904· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-04-03 ·cited 2×
  Appellant was convicted of aggravated stalking after the trial court admitted his victim's 911 call and three jail calls as evidence. Appellant challenged the admission of these statements on confrontation clause and hearsay grounds, arguing conviction was impossible without them
• Arroyo v. State
  252 So. 3d 374· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of the victim's prior consensual sexual activity under the Rape Shield Statute, excluding marginally relevant text messages, or denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, as substantial evidence supported that
• Moscatiello v. State
  247 So. 3d 11· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-06-06 ·cited 2×
  Testimony at a bond hearing may qualify as former testimony under Florida Evidence Rule 90.804(2)(a) when the defendant had a similar motive and opportunity to cross-examine the witness, even if the defendant did not fully exercise that opportunity. However, statements by a non-t
• Gomez v. State
  245 So. 3d 950· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-04-25 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Although prior allegations of sexual assault do not fall under Florida's rape shield statute, evidence of a victim's prior allegations against the defendant and against a third party were properly excluded as irrelevant because they lacked sufficient similarity to the charged con
• S.D. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families
  208 So. 3d 320· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-01-04 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the father waived his right to object to his adult daughter's testimony via Skype, and the confrontation right is not implicated in civil dependency proceedings.
• Granados v. State
  199 So. 3d 384· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-08-17 ·cited 2×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  Rolando Granados was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter over several years. On appeal, he challenged admission of the child's out-of-court hearsay statements, sufficiency of evidence on two counts, and the prosecutor's cross-examination questioning why his daughter would
• Gil Camacho v. State
  192 So. 3d 568· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-05-18 ·cited 2×
  A defendant appeals his conviction for attempted second-degree murder and false imprisonment after the trial court admitted the victim's testimony from a pre-trial Arthur hearing, taken after the victim died and became unavailable. The court affirmed, holding that the defendant's
• Banegas-Membran v. State
  182 So. 3d 865· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-01-06 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Raul Banegas-Membran was convicted of witness tampering under Florida Statute § 914.22(1) for sending a letter to his ex-girlfriend (mother of alleged victim) asking her not to testify against him in sexual abuse charges. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his convictio
• Constant v. State
  120 So. 3d 122· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-08-14 ·cited 2×
  Kevin Constant was convicted of armed robbery based largely on victim identification evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court admitted inadmissible hearsay—a police officer's testimony about the co-victim's out-of-court identification—when th
• Johnson v. State
  117 So. 3d 1238· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-07-10 ·cited 2×
  Johnson appeals convictions for sexual battery with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child, challenging the admission of DNA evidence and a rape treatment report when the examining physician did not testify. The court upheld the admission of t
• Caldwell v. State
  125 So. 3d 1018· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-07-03 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Rebecca Ann Caldwell appealed her convictions for three counts of grand theft and one count of making a false entry into corporate books. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed her convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's exclusion of defense
• Bishullang Shen v. Parkes
  100 So. 3d 1189· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-10-31 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the trial court erred in relying on written reports of an examining committee as evidence in a contested incapacity hearing over a hearsay objection, as the rules of evidence apply and the committee members did not testify.
• Martin v. State
  85 So. 3d 537· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-04-11 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Derek Martin was convicted of first-degree felony murder, but the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court erroneously admitted redacted portions of Martin's police interrogation in which a detective implied that co-defendants and other witnesses h
• Wescott v. State
  72 So. 3d 304· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-10-19 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Adverse Witnesses
  Justin Wescott appealed his convictions for grand theft, burglary, and providing a false name to law enforcement. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial on all counts, finding two fundamental errors: conviction on an uncharged crime varia
• Rogers v. State
  40 So. 3d 888· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-07-23 ·cited 2×
  Timothy David Rogers appealed his conviction, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when the trial court allowed a key state witness to testify via satellite from China. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that satellit
• Wyon Dale Childers v. Floyd
  608 F.3d 776· 11th Cir.· 2010-06-08 ·cited 2×
  Wyon Dale Childers was convicted of bribery and unlawful compensation based primarily on testimony from Willie Junior, a co-conspirator who received a favorable plea agreement in exchange for cooperation. The trial court prohibited Childers from cross-examining Junior about the E
• United States v. Faxon
  689 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 2010-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny restitution, finding that the victims' claimed losses were not proximately caused by the defendant's specific criminal acts.
• Cobb v. State
  16 So. 3d 207· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-08-07 ·cited 2×
  Terrance Cobb was convicted of first-degree murder and theft in connection with an armed robbery. On appeal, Cobb challenged the admission of the victim's dying declarations to police officers, arguing they violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Crawford v. Was
• Johnson v. State
  1 So. 3d 1164· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-01-28 ·cited 2×
  Johnson was convicted of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious molestation of his young son and daughter based primarily on out-of-court hearsay statements that the children recanted at trial. The appellate court reversed the convictions on those charges, finding insufficient ev
• M.J. v. State
  994 So. 2d 485· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-11-12 ·cited 2×
  M.J., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for resisting an officer without violence after fleeing from an off-duty police officer at a mall. The appellate court affirmed, holding that hearsay statements from a loss prevention security officer describing suspected shoplifting w
• State v. Villarreal
  990 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-09-10 ·cited 2×
  The State of Florida sought certiorari review of a trial court order allowing the defendant's two minor children to testify via satellite from Ecuador in a sexual battery and false imprisonment case. The Third District Court of Appeal quashed the order, holding that the children
• Josper Sanon v. State
  978 So. 2d 275· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-04-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the son's statement to the officer was testimonial and inadmissible under Crawford v. Washington because there was no ongoing emergency.
• Kendrick Demonte Edwards v. State
  967 So. 2d 308· Fla. 3d DCA· 2007-09-26 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Edwards was convicted of armed robbery based primarily on evidence that a non-testifying witness (Eulaine) had identified him as the person seen at a flea market the day after the robbery. The court reversed because police officers were improperly allowed to testify about Eulaine
• Godwin v. Johnson
  957 So. 2d 39· Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-04-26 ·cited 2×
  Terry Wayne and Matthew Wayne Godwin petitioned for habeas corpus relief challenging the circuit court's denial of pretrial release in a second-degree murder case. The court rejected their Crawford v. Washington arguments contending that the confrontation clause applies to pretri
• Felton v. State
  949 So. 2d 342· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court improperly restricted the defendant's cross-examination of the victim regarding her methadone use at the time of the incident, requiring a new trial.
• State v. Hamner
  942 So. 2d 433· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-10-25 ·cited 2×
  John Dean Hamner was convicted by jury of sexual battery without physical force. The trial court imposed a downward departure sentence of 30 months in the Department of Corrections. On appeal, the State challenged the downward departure sentence, while Hamner cross-appealed on ev
• Randall v. State
  938 So. 2d 542· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant waived several arguments on appeal by failing to preserve them at trial, and any potential errors were harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt.
• State v. Pinault
  933 So. 2d 1287· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-08-02 ·cited 2×
  The trial court's order denying admission of child hearsay evidence is quashed because the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of a statement when the declarant testifies at trial and is available for cross-examination.
• Fencher v. State
  931 So. 2d 184· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed convictions for sexual battery, burglary, and kidnapping, holding that the admission of a rape kit without the testimony of the collecting nurse did not violate the Confrontation Clause as another nurse testified to the collection procedures and the k
• Evans v. Seagraves
  922 So. 2d 318· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-02-22 ·cited 2×
  Tony Evans Jr. petitioned for habeas corpus relief after a trial court found probable cause at an adversary preliminary hearing based solely on hearsay testimony. The Florida First District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that hearsay evidence alone cannot satisfy t
• State v. Miller
  918 So. 2d 350· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The State appeals a trial court's decision to grant a new trial based on a Crawford v. Washington Confrontation Clause violation. The court held that when a witness appears at trial for cross-examination, prior testimonial statements may be admitted even if the witness has faulty
• Jennings v. Crosby
  392 F. Supp. 2d 1312· N.D. Fla.· 2005-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding no violation of Brady or Strickland standards.
• Williams v. State
  909 So. 2d 599· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that statements made to a 911 operator were not testimonial and that a defendant does not have a right to a jury trial for habitual offender sentencing.
• Rodriguez v. State
  905 So. 2d 959· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-06-22 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding the police investigation sufficient for probable cause and the admission of evidence within the trial court's discretion.
• Barr v. State
  881 So. 2d 1185· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-08-30 ·cited 2×
  Charles Barr appeals his cocaine sale conviction, challenging the trial court's refusal to allow cross-examination about the 'takedown signal' used by an undercover detective to communicate that a drug transaction had occurred. The court reversed, holding that the defendant's Six
• Nieves v. State
  849 So. 2d 435· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-07-16 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's probationary status and in excluding defense witness testimony, nor in denying the admission of character evidence.
• State v. Brocca
  842 So. 2d 291· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-04-16 ·cited 2×
• State v. Adderly
  803 So. 2d 760· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim's prior sexual activity, as there was no legally sufficient reason to overcome the rape shield statute.
• Smith v. State
  762 So. 2d 969· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-05-31 ·cited 2×·via Right To Confrontation
  Smith sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to argue the correct harmless error standard under Chapman-DiGuilio-Goodwin analysis. The Fourth District agreed that appellate counsel's failure to challenge the lower court's im