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
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-02-27 ·via Right To Confrontation
  This case addresses the authority of juvenile courts to issue "do not run" orders and the due process requirements for contempt proceedings arising from violations of such orders. The court affirmed the issuance of "do not run" orders for two juveniles but reversed a contempt adj
• A.A. v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-02-27 ·via Right To Confrontation
  This case addresses the authority of juvenile courts to issue "do not run" orders and the due process requirements for contempt proceedings arising from violations of such orders. The court affirmed the issuance of "do not run" orders for two juveniles but reversed a contempt adj
• A.A. v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-02-27 ·via Right To Confrontation
  This case addresses the authority of juvenile courts to issue "do not run" orders and the due process requirements for contempt proceedings arising from violations of such orders. The court affirmed the issuance of "do not run" orders for two juveniles but reversed a contempt adj
• Recco v. State
  264 So. 3d 273· Fla. 5th DCA· 2019-01-25 ·via Right To Confrontation
  A trial court abuses its discretion by preventing a defendant from cross-examining a key prosecution witness with prior inconsistent statements and from publishing those inconsistencies to the jury, even when the witness is a child, because the defendant's right to full and fair
• Clark v. State
  268 So. 3d 751· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-01-09
  Rodney Clark was convicted of first-degree murder in a cold case from 1987 that was solved through DNA evidence. On appeal, Clark challenged the admission of a latent fingerprint card and the testimony of witnesses who did not create the original evidence. The court affirmed the
• Geovani Johnson v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-12-19
  The Melbourne procedure is a mandatory three-step process that trial courts must always follow, not merely when requested by a party. Step 3 of the Melbourne procedure imposes a duty on trial courts to request a response from the opponent of a peremptory challenge once a race-neu
• 14 AP 56 Opinion
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2018-10-03
  This consolidated appeal of 31 DUI cases addresses whether trial courts properly ordered the State to produce source code and software for the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath-testing device. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding the trial court violated due process by ordering production o
• Butler v. State
  254 So. 3d 651· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-09-20
  James R. Butler appeals his conviction for two counts of sexual battery on a person less than 12 years of age, challenging the trial court's decision to allow the victim to testify via satellite video transmission from Australia. The court affirms the conviction and the use of sa
• Javoris Denard Phillips v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-03-07
  Appellant was convicted of burglary and grand theft based primarily on evidence that a stolen computer was found in a rental car rented by him. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, though one judge concurred specially to note potential ineffective assistance of counsel c
• Pinestraw v. State
  238 So. 3d 918· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-02-28 ·via Right To Confrontation
  Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and shooting into an occupied building following a shooting at an apartment that killed a 22-month-old child. He filed a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 3.850 seeking post-conviction relief based on in
• Bubb v. State
  225 So. 3d 365· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-08-11 ·via Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause)
  William Bubb was convicted of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation of a child after a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of a Child Protection Team interview video after the child victim refused to testify, claiming a Sixth Amendment con
• Gutierrez-Hernandez v. State
  221 So. 3d 792· Fla. 2d DCA· 2017-07-14
  Lazaro Gutierrez-Hernandez was convicted of marijuana trafficking based partly on evidence obtained during an unlawful arrest. The Florida appellate court reversed his convictions because the trial court erred by admitting his illegally obtained inculpatory statements and his sis
• Moss
  Del.· 2017-06-28
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the drug evidence despite discrepancies in the chain of custody, as these went to the weight of the evidence. The court also found no abuse of discretio
• Phillips
  Del.· 2017-01-17
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the defendant's convictions but vacated his death sentence, remanding for resentencing to life imprisonment without parole. The court found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding severance, admission of evidence, witness statements, ju
• Plaintiff-Below v. Damone Flowers
  Del.· 2016-10-21 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's grant of post-conviction relief, holding that the defendant's motion was untimely and repetitive, and the exception for a miscarriage of justice was not properly invoked. The Court found that the trial counsel's decision no
• Bravo v. State
  200 So. 3d 797· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-10-07
  Pedro Bravo appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and related offenses in the death of his friend. The appellate court rejected all three of Bravo's claims on appeal and affirmed his conviction.
• S.D. C/O Cherri Martinez v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
  204 So. 3d 42· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-10-04
  Appellant S.D. appealed a final order reducing her Medicaid-funded personal care and homemaker services. The court found that her due process rights were violated when the hearing officer accepted additional evidence without party agreement and without opportunity for rebuttal, a
• Daniels v. State
  197 So. 3d 1226· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-07-27
  The court held that the absence of a foreperson's signature on the jury verdict form does not constitute reversible error per se, provided the verdict was in writing, announced in open court, and confirmed by a poll of the jury.
• Dion Alan Kaseta v. State
  192 So. 3d 697· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-06-03
  Dion Kaseta was convicted of manslaughter in the 2001 disappearance of his girlfriend Kimberly Mimmovich. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction due to a critical evidentiary error: the trial court improperly admitted double hearsay testimony from Julie Mart
• Squire v. State
  193 So. 3d 105· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-05-25
  Rodney Squire appeals his convictions for attempted felony murder, attempted robbery, and aggravated battery, challenging the admissibility of his confession, a victim's statement, and BOLO evidence. The Fourth District reversed on the confession and BOLO issues but affirmed on t
• Jhavon Goode
  Del.· 2016-04-04
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that the Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances
• Padilla v. State
  189 So. 3d 986· Fla. 2d DCA· 2016-04-01
  Hector Josué Vazquez Padilla was convicted of first-degree murder based largely on an audio recording of a police interrogation statement by Abel Garcia, who was unavailable to testify at trial. The court reversed the conviction, holding that admission of Garcia's testimonial sta
• Ragin v. State
  186 So. 3d 589· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-02-24
  Ragin appeals his conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, challenging the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding a civil forfeiture settlement in which police returned half of seized currency to him. The Fourth District DCA reversed, holding that evidenc
• Vance Jerome Farmer v. State
  180 So. 3d 1058· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-11-18
  Vance Farmer appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a screen placed between him and a child victim during testimony. The court affirms, holding that counsel's decision to consent to t
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2015-09-03
  The Court denied the defendants' motions for mistrial and severance. The court found that the witness's mention of witness protection, while improper, did not warrant a mistrial due to the brief nature of the statement, the lack of direct implication of the defendants, and the su
• Morse
  Del.· 2015-08-06
  The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the defendant's uncharged abusive acts under D.R.E. 404(b), as the evidence was material to disputed issues of intent and state of mind, properly proven, not too remote, and its probative value was not subst
• Milligan
  Del.· 2015-06-10
  The appellate court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the admission of chain of custody documents did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the Sixth Amendment does not require live testimony from every individual who handled the evidence. Furthermore, the
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2015-06-02
  The court held that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit a substitute pathologist from testifying to their own expert opinions based on the factual observations contained in an autopsy report prepared by a non-testifying pathologist, provided the substitute pathologist form
• State of Del. v. Windsor
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2015-02-25 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The Court summarily denies the defendant's motion for postconviction relief. The defendant's claims are procedurally barred as they were either formerly adjudicated on appeal or not raised in prior proceedings. Even if not barred, the claims lack merit and do not meet the pleadin
• State v. Gerry
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2014-10-09 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court's exclusion of hearsay evidence—an unidentified bystander's statement that the defendant was drunk and fighting—on grounds of insufficient reliability under Florida's spontaneous statement exception. The appellate court affirmed the tria
• State v. Roberts
  174 So. 3d 374· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-04-30
  The State petitioned for certiorari to quash a trial court order that denied the State's motion to declare crime victim Michelle Rimondi 'unavailable' under Florida's hearsay exception rule and admit her prior trial testimony at defendant Roberts' resentencing hearing. The appell
• Stanford v. State
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2014-04-09 ·via Constitutional Right To Confrontation
  Ruth Stanford appealed a hearing officer's determination that she violated Florida's red light traffic law based on red light camera evidence. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the record was unclear whether the hearing officer actually reviewed the affidavit esta
• State v. Robinson
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2014-03-02
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court's order granting a motion to suppress evidence in a DUI case. The appellate court reverses, holding that hearsay evidence from a civilian witness is admissible at suppression hearings and that the Sixth Amendment confrontation right does
• Peterson v. State
  129 So. 3d 451· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-01-03
  The court held that the air bag control system report was not testimonial hearsay and therefore admissible under the Confrontation Clause.
• Kowalski v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins.
  1992 WL 92994· S.D. Fla.· 2013-11-07
  The court held that the policy's terms governed ownership changes, and the insured was not a party to the policy, thus not precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the estate.
• Simmons v. DHSMV
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2013-04-04 ·via Right To Confrontation
  John Simmons sought certiorari review of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' final order sustaining his driver's license suspension for driving with an unlawful breath alcohol level. The Ninth Judicial Circuit Court granted the petition and quashed the suspension
• Oehling v. State
  109 So. 3d 1199· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-03-27
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon but reversed a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The court found that the defendant failed to preserve a Confrontation Clause issue regarding a surrogate
• Demetric McMILLON v. State
  109 So. 3d 886· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-03-22 ·via Right To Confrontation
  McMillon was convicted of cocaine delivery and sentenced to ten years in prison. On appeal, McMillon argued the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence because he exercised his right to confront witnesses by demanding the confidential informant's identity be revealed. The co
• Fields v. State
  107 So. 3d 1227· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-02-22 ·via Right To Confrontation
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for grand theft and that the issue of testimonial business records was not preserved.
• Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. v. Lamb
  118 F. Supp. 2d 322· M.D. Fla.· 2012-11-14
  The court held that Thomas and Edward Ehlen have standing as ERISA plan participants, despite not meeting technical requirements, and that the availability of remedies does not impact ERISA preemption. The court also addressed the recoverability of IRS taxes and penalties under E
• Knox v. State
  98 So. 3d 679· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-10-03
  Timothy Knox was convicted of three counts of robbery with a firearm after the trial court allowed videotaped testimony from an out-of-state victim who claimed economic hardship prevented her travel to Florida. The appellate court reversed, holding that economic hardship alone, w
• Kiser v. DHSMV
  9th Cir. Ct. App. Div.· 2012-07-08
  John Kiser sought certiorari review of an administrative order suspending his driver's license for driving with an unlawful breath-alcohol level (.107-.108). The court denied his petition, finding the Department met its burden to prove substantial compliance with FDLE testing rul
• In & for Kent Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2012-06-06
  The Court denied the defendant's Motion for Postconviction Relief, finding that most of his claims were barred by procedural rules and that he failed to demonstrate prejudice for the remaining claims, particularly those concerning ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Daemont Wheeler
  Del.· 2012-02-07
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgments, holding that while the admission of indirect hearsay testimony violated the hearsay rule and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to cumulative properly a
• London v. State
  75 So. 3d 357· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-11-22
  Gregory London was convicted of aggravated battery based on a 911 call recording made by his daughter describing the assault. London appealed on Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause grounds, arguing the 911 operator's questioning elicited testimonial statements. The court affirme
• Alejandro v. Palm Beach State Coll.
  639 F. App'x 701· S.D. Fla.· 2011-11-08
• B.M. v. State
  66 So. 3d 1013· Fla. 3d DCA· 2011-07-06 ·via Right To Confrontation
  B.M., a juvenile, was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The trial court improperly excluded evidence of the arresting officer's alleged excessive force and an internal affairs complaint against that officer. The appellate court
• Kenyon Harrison v. State
  62 So. 3d 1229· Fla. 5th DCA· 2011-06-10
  Harrison's petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is granted. His appellate counsel failed to raise a constitutional confrontation clause issue on direct appeal—specifically, the trial court's ruling excluding evidence of a key State witness's juvenile probation
• Johnson v. State
  63 So. 3d 806· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-04-29 ·via Right To Confrontation
• In & for New Castle Cnty.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2011-02-25
  The court denied the defendant's motion for postconviction relief, finding that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, both at trial and on appeal, failed to meet the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington. The court determined that the defendant did not demons