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

• A.A. v. State
  271 So. 3d 87· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-02-27 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Three juveniles appealed or petitioned against "do not run" orders issued in their delinquency cases. The court upheld the orders for S.F. and N.A., finding statutory authority in Florida's juvenile detention statutes, but reversed A.A.'s contempt conviction because the contempt
• Alden Mitchell Howard v. State
  254 So. 3d 1188· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-10-02 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the co-defendant's private jailhouse statements to friends were not testimonial and therefore did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that the statements were admissible under the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest.
• Knight v. State
  254 So. 3d 642· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-09-07 ·cited 1×
  A trial court's failure to make case-specific findings required by statute before allowing closed-circuit television testimony does not require reversal when not preserved for appeal and is not fundamental error. Additionally, a defendant's right to communicate with counsel durin
• Felice John Veach v. State
  254 So. 3d 624· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-08-30 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The trial court properly admitted the disputed portions of the jailhouse telephone call because they were relevant to establishing appellant's identity on the call, and any probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudicial effect. The trial court also properly restricted c
• Macomber v. State
  254 So. 3d 1098· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-08-30 ·cited 1×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Evidence that K.M. stated Macomber sexually abused both her and A.M. during the same criminal episode is relevant and admissible because it is inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes, not a collateral matter offered solely for impeachment. The trial court abused its disc
• Joseph v. State
  250 So. 3d 113· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-06-27 ·cited 1×
  Kevin Joseph appeals his conviction for aggravated battery, challenging the trial court's admission of a victim's recorded statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to hearsay. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the State failed to establish that
• Roberts v. State
  43 Fla. L. Weekly S34· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-05-16 ·cited 1×·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  James Roberts appealed his conviction for three counts of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under twelve and two counts of misdemeanor battery, challenging the trial court's admission of child-hearsay statements under Florida Statutes section 90.803(23). The appellate cou
• Javoris Denard Phillips v. State
  238 So. 3d 845· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-02-28 ·cited 1×
  Appellant was convicted of burglary and grand theft based primarily on possession of stolen property found in a rental car he rented. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, though a concurring judge noted potential ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding both tr
• Byrd v. State
  221 So. 3d 659· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-06-14 ·cited 1×
  Thomas Byrd was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery alongside two co-defendants. On appeal, Byrd challenged the trial court's admission of his co-defendant Sammiel's recorded police statement to rebut an alibi witness. The court reversed and remanded for a new tria
• Moorer v. State
  217 So. 3d 1141· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-04-28 ·cited 1×
  Moorer appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging the voluntariness of his plea of no contest. The trial court failed to address his right to compel witnesses and confront witnesses, and failed to inquire into his understanding of these rights
• Grange v. State
  199 So. 3d 440· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-08-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a post-conviction movant does not possess the same constitutional rights as a criminal defendant, and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply in post-conviction relief proceedings.
• Rosario v. State
  175 So. 3d 843· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-08-28 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal held that an autopsy report prepared pursuant to Florida Statutes chapter 406 constitutes testimonial hearsay under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, but found any error in its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt bec
• Vance Jerome Farmer v. State
  128 So. 3d 248· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-12-11 ·cited 1×
  Petitioner sought relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, claiming counsel should have challenged the trial court's use of a projector screen placed between the defendant and a four-year-old child abuse victim during testimony. The court denied the petition, holdi
• Hurley v. State
  112 So. 3d 114· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-04-16 ·cited 1×
  Tina Jinnette Hurley sought certiorari review of a county court order permitting a peer-reviewing FDLE analyst to testify at her DUI trial in place of the original analyst. The appellate court dismissed her petition, holding that she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that co
• Edwards-Freeman v. State
  93 So. 3d 497· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-07-25 ·cited 1×
  Edwards-Freeman appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm, arguing the trial court violated the Confrontation Clause by admitting hearsay testimony from a non-testifying victim and improperly prevented cross-examination about inconsistencies between victims' st
• Flores v. State
  92 So. 3d 855· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-06-13 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Carlos Flores appeals his conviction for Lewd and Lascivious Molestation, raising multiple constitutional and procedural challenges. The court affirms the conviction, focusing its opinion on rejecting Flores' argument that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the chil
• Gusmao v. State
  48 So. 3d 93· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-10-29 ·cited 1×
  Fernando Gusmao appeals his conviction for grand theft of over $100,000. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the admission of hearsay evidence, the characterization of checks as worthless, or the sufficiency of evidence regarding crimin
• Farinacci v. State
  29 So. 3d 1212· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-03-17 ·cited 1×
  Richard Farinacci was charged with lewdly and lasciviously fondling a child's buttocks in a supermarket. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, finding that a detective's testimony demonstrating how the child described the touching was inadmissible hearsay t
• Marshall v. State
  45 So. 3d 470· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-01-20 ·cited 1×
• Washington v. State
  18 So. 3d 1221· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-10-07 ·cited 1×
  Randy Washington was convicted of acting as an unlicensed contractor after the State introduced a 'certificate of non-licensure' from the Florida Licensing Division. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that this certificate was a testimonial statement subject to the Confront
• Puiatti v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections
  651 F. Supp. 2d 1286· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-14 ·cited 1×
  The Court held that Puiatti's petition must be granted as to the penalty phase due to a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing, but denied as to the guilt phase.
• Johnson v. Moore
  472 F. Supp. 2d 1344· M.D. Fla.· 2007-02-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence of the complainant's alleged prostitution and drug use under Florida's rape shield law, as the defense failed to lay the proper predicate for its admission.
• Lena v. State
  901 So. 2d 227· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-04-13 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Manuel Lena appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation of a child under twelve. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that a partial courtroom closure with a television link for excluded persons requires only a 'substan
• State v. Harris
  819 So. 2d 844· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-05-15 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The State of Florida petitioned for a writ of certiorari to prevent disclosure of the specific location and type of surveillance equipment used in a drug transaction. The court denied the petition, holding that absent alternative evidence (such as a videotape), the defendant's Si
• Ogeda Dennis v. State
  782 So. 2d 939· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-03-28 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that while the trial court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact, the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not renewing his objection prior to the victim's testimony.
• Jeffries v. State
  776 So. 2d 335· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-01-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in consolidating the cases or denying severance, as the codefendant testified and the defendant was aware of the strategy.
• Brown v. State
  721 So. 2d 814· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-12-16 ·cited 1×
  David Lee Brown was convicted of burglary with battery and aggravated battery based partly on pretrial depositions of two elderly victims who did not appear at trial. The court reversed because the trial judge erroneously admitted the depositions as evidence without Brown being p
• Mesa v. State
  673 So. 2d 51· Fla. 3d DCA· 1996-03-13 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Manuel Mesa appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, armed burglary, and armed robbery, challenging the admission of statements he made after invoking his right to counsel. The Florida appellate court affirms, holding that Mesa's subsequent statements to a co-defendant an
• United States v. Anthony Medina (91-1852)
  992 F.2d 573· 6th Cir.· 1993-04-12 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The dissenting judge believes the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for using a telephone to facilitate a drug transaction when the defendant was already prosecuted for the underlying drug possession.
• Cloe v. State
  613 So. 2d 70· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-01-20 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Jack Allen Cloe was convicted of DUI manslaughter. The court affirmed his conviction but reversed and remanded for resentencing because his 20-year sentence exceeded the guideline range and was based on improper aggravating factors.
• Ring v. Erickson
  983 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 1×
  The admission of two videotaped statements from a child victim, one under a medical diagnosis exception and the other under a special child hearsay exception, violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the statements lacked sufficient indicia of relia
• United States v. Lanny Ray Leeper
  964 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confront Evidence
  The court held that an inadvertent oral instruction mentioning a prior manslaughter conviction was harmless error, and that the defendant's prior convictions and current offense qualified him for career offender sentencing.
• Tinson v. State
  594 So. 2d 334· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-02-27 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  Aaron Tinson appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a six-year-old child. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's admission of the child victim's hearsay statements under Florida's excited utterance exception and ruling that remain
• Adams v. R.S. Peterson
  939 F.2d 1369· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confront Accusers
  The dissent argues that the defendant's stipulation to facts mirroring the indictment constituted a de facto guilty plea, requiring the protections of Boykin v. Alabama, which were not afforded.
• Commonwealth OF THE N. Mariana Islands v. Young II Kawano (aka Eiichi Sai) (aka Eiichi Kawano)
  917 F.2d 379· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal for want of federal jurisdiction because the District Court lacked appellate jurisdiction over the convictions after the establishment of the Northern Mariana Islands Supreme Court.
• Rory Powell v. Honorable S. James Foxman
  528 So. 2d 91· Fla. 5th DCA· 1988-07-07 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses and impeach their testimony outweighs the state's interest in maintaining the confidentiality of juvenile dependency hearing records.
• United States v. Gaffney
  676 F. Supp. 1544· M.D. Fla.· 1987-12-18 ·cited 1×·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the cumulative effect of extraneous information and outside influences disclosed in the jury room created a reasonable possibility of prejudice, warranting a new trial.
• United States v. Williams
  822 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges was not discriminatory, the admission of reputation testimony was not plain error, cross-examination restrictions were not an abuse of discretion, bail denial was moot, and closing arguments were not substantially
• United States v. Khalid Yousaf Malik
  800 F.2d 143· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-29 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's prior conviction evidence was admissible and that the prosecutor's conversation with a witness during a trial recess did not constitute reversible error.
• Marchese v. State OF Cal. (appeal filed sub nom. Paul T. Walker
  545 F.2d 645· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the appeal is moot due to the petitioner's release from custody and that the petitioner's claims regarding his state conviction lack merit.
• Evans v. Dutton
  441 F.2d 657· 5th Cir.· 1971-05-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the issues previously decided in a companion case were properly disposed of and adhered to that decision.
• Cappetta v. Louie L. Wainwright
  433 F.2d 1027· 5th Cir.· 1970-11-05 ·cited 1×·via Confrontation Of Witnesses
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief, finding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief on any of his asserted grounds.
• United States v. Nero
  433 F.2d 350· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the admission of co-defendant's statements was harmless error and did not violate the appellant's confrontation rights.
• Fla. Processing Co. v. Dade Cnty.
  30 Fla. Supp. 75· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-01-11 ·cited 1×
  Florida Processing Company challenged a cease-and-desist order issued by Dade County's pollution control officer for operating a plant that allegedly created health hazards through noxious odors. The court granted certiorari and quashed the pollution control board's decision upho
• United States v. Joseph
  333 F.2d 1012· 6th Cir.· 1964-06-30 ·cited 1×·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was not violated and that the corpus delicti was sufficiently established.
• Marshall v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-10-14
  A 911 recording of a robbery victim's statements to a police dispatcher is nontestimonial and does not violate the Confrontation Clause when made during an ongoing emergency, even if the victim is later unavailable for cross-examination at trial.
• Silverio Fonte v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-09-23
  A routine toxicology report prepared as part of an autopsy performed pursuant to statutory duty does not violate the Confrontation Clause when testified to by a substitute witness because the report is not testimonial in nature.
• Martin v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.
  11th Cir.· 2026-09-14
  The preclusion order did not violate Martin's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses because he was able to meaningfully expose investigative bias and witness credibility through cross-examination of the evidence and investigative failures, even though he could not reference
• United States v. Thompson
  11th Cir.· 2026-08-24
  A defendant's waiver of counsel remains valid after a superseding indictment that increases sentencing exposure if the defendant understands the new charges and reaffirms his desire for self-representation, without requiring a new formal Faretta hearing. The district court did no
• Torbit v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2026-07-29
  Section 90.404(2)(c), Florida Statutes, by its express terms applies only to evidence of the defendant's own sexual offenses and does not permit a defendant to introduce evidence of sexual offenses committed by third parties under a 'reverse Williams rule.' Even if such evidence