Florida Statute 92.53 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title VII
EVIDENCE

Chapter 92
WITNESSES, RECORDS, AND DOCUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 92.53

92.53 Videotaping the testimony of a victim or witness under age 18 or who has an intellectual disability.—

(1) On motion and hearing in camera and a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that a victim or witness who is under the age of 18 or who has an intellectual disability as defined in s. 393.063 would suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm due to the presence of the defendant if such victim or witness is required to testify in open court, or is unavailable as defined in s. 90.804(1), the trial court may order the videotaping of the testimony of the victim or witness in a case, whether civil or criminal in nature, in which videotaped testimony is to be used at trial in lieu of trial testimony in open court.

(2) The motion may be filed by:

(a) The victim or witness, or the victim’s or witness’s attorney, parent, legal guardian, or guardian ad litem;

(b) A trial judge on his or her own motion;

(d) The prosecuting attorney or the defendant, or the defendant’s counsel.

(3) The judge shall preside, or shall appoint a special master to preside, at the videotaping unless:

(a) The child or the person who has the intellectual disability is represented by a guardian ad litem or counsel;

(b) The representative of the victim or witness and the counsel for each party stipulate that the requirement for the presence of the judge or special master may be waived; and

(c) The court finds at a hearing on the motion that the presence of a judge or special master is not necessary to protect the victim or witness.

(4) The defendant and the defendant’s counsel must be present at the videotaping unless the defendant has waived this right. The court may require the defendant to view the testimony from outside the presence of the child or the person who has an intellectual disability by means of a two-way mirror or another similar method that ensures that the defendant can observe and hear the testimony of the victim or witness in person, but the victim or witness cannot hear or see the defendant. The defendant and the attorney for the defendant may communicate by any appropriate private method.

(5) Any party, or the court on its own motion, may request the aid of an interpreter, as provided in s. 90.606, to aid the parties in formulating methods of questioning the child or person who has the intellectual disability and in interpreting the answers of the child or person during proceedings conducted under this section.

(6) The motion referred to in subsection (1) may be made at any time with reasonable notice to each party to the cause, and videotaping of testimony may be made any time after the court grants the motion. The videotaped testimony is admissible as evidence in the trial of the cause; however, such testimony is not admissible in any trial or proceeding in which such witness testifies by use of closed-circuit television pursuant to s. 92.54.

(7) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 79-69; s. 1, ch. 84-36; ss. 5, 9, ch. 85-53; s. 9, ch. 85-80; s. 1, ch. 93-131; s. 21, ch. 94-154; s. 1379, ch. 95-147; s. 30, ch. 99-2; s. 4, ch. 2000-338; s. 89, ch. 2004-267; s. 4, ch. 2013-162; s. 1, ch. 2016-199.

Note.—Former ss. 918.17, 90.90.

F.S. 92.53 on Google Scholar

F.S. 92.53 on CourtListener

Amendments to 92.53

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 92.53

Total Results: 36

Glendening v. State

536 So. 2d 212, 57 U.S.L.W. 2391

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 1988 | Docket: 422176

Cited 84 times | Published

introduction at trial pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985). Section 92.53 provides that upon *216

Hopkins v. State

632 So. 2d 1372, 1994 WL 11604

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 20, 1994 | Docket: 2514787

Cited 65 times | Published

guarantee of right to confrontation in applying section 92.53, which permits videotaping of child's testimony

Jaggers v. State

536 So. 2d 321, 1988 WL 137176

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 20, 1988 | Docket: 1759626

Cited 41 times | Published

depositions, conducted after a hearing pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985).[1] At that hearing

Feller v. State

637 So. 2d 911, 1994 WL 137846

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 1994 | Docket: 368820

Cited 38 times | Published

BY FAILING TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 92.53(1), FLORIDA STATUTES *913 (1989), PRIOR TO ALLOWING

Blanton v. State

978 So. 2d 149, 2008 WL 657832

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Mar 13, 2008 | Docket: 2515926

Cited 28 times | Published

confrontation in a rule 3.190(j) deposition. Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (2006), details just how the

Flanagan v. State

586 So. 2d 1085, 1991 WL 133574

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 14, 1991 | Docket: 473454

Cited 28 times | Published

testimony, taken before a trial pursuant to Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), is essentially a deposition

Young v. State

645 So. 2d 965, 1994 WL 570629

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Oct 20, 1994 | Docket: 107661

Cited 26 times | Published

to testify at trial via videotaped testimony. § 92.53, Fla. Stat. (1993). In addition, the prior statements

Kenneth Cumbie v. Harry K. Singletary

991 F.2d 715, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 12317, 1993 WL 148947

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: May 26, 1993 | Docket: 614881

Cited 22 times | Published

adequacy of findings for applying analogous Fla.Stat. § 92.53, allowing videotaping of testimony of child witness

Barton v. State

704 So. 2d 569, 1997 WL 422523

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1997 | Docket: 1355104

Cited 19 times | Published

that the state had not met its burden under section 92.53, Florida Statutes. Following the second hearing

Glendening v. State

503 So. 2d 335

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 1987 | Docket: 1452788

Cited 15 times | Published

testimony for introduction at trial pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985). After hearing evidence

Mathis v. State

682 So. 2d 175, 1996 WL 570217

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 8, 1996 | Docket: 1276403

Cited 12 times | Published

child could testify by videotape, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes, to determine whether evidence

Williams v. State

560 So. 2d 1304, 1990 WL 52797

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 1990 | Docket: 1739530

Cited 11 times | Published

when the three year old victim recanted during section 92.53(1) testimony held to be equivalent to trial

Leggett v. State

565 So. 2d 315, 1990 WL 93088

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jul 5, 1990 | Docket: 1726024

Cited 10 times | Published

personally appearing in court, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1987). Leggett challenged

Chambers v. State

504 So. 2d 476, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 821

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1987 | Docket: 453453

Cited 9 times | Published

children to view during their deliberations. Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), previously section

In the Interest of A.B. v. R.B.

186 So. 3d 544, 2015 WL 968556

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 6, 2015 | Docket: 60253883

Cited 4 times | Published

the functional .equivalent of her testimony.. Section 92.53(3) expressly conditions the trial court’s power

Feller v. State

617 So. 2d 1091, 1993 WL 116636

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 16, 1993 | Docket: 1512475

Cited 4 times | Published

her trial testimony by videotape, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1989). Having thoroughly

United States v. Yates

391 F.3d 1182, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24484, 2004 WL 2676738

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Nov 24, 2004 | Docket: 239227

Cited 3 times | Published

See, e.g., Ala. Code § 15-25-2; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 92.53. . The Defendants also objected to conducting

Doe v. Broward County School Bd.

744 So. 2d 1068, 1999 WL 743613

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 22, 1999 | Docket: 1380570

Cited 3 times | Published

would "testify"via her videotaped deposition. Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1997)(Videotaping of testimony

Hopkins v. State

608 So. 2d 33, 1992 WL 170976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 1992 | Docket: 1449059

Cited 3 times | Published

DCA 1988), the state had filed a motion under section 92.53, Florida Statutes, to videotape the testimony

Young v. State

506 So. 2d 13, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 875

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 26, 1987 | Docket: 1700234

Cited 3 times | Published

794.011(5), Fla. Stat. (1983). Pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes, the trial court permitted

Lewis v. State

626 So. 2d 1073, 1993 WL 462764

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 12, 1993 | Docket: 1286246

Cited 2 times | Published

the similar statutory standard provided in Section 92.53(1), Florida Statutes (1987), and specifically

Poukner v. State

556 So. 2d 1231, 1990 WL 15901

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 1990 | Docket: 542846

Cited 2 times | Published

two contentions. First, Poukner contends that section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), is unconstitutional

Rogers v. State

40 So. 3d 888, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10686, 2010 WL 2866989

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 23, 2010 | Docket: 1667029

Cited 1 times | Published

Ct. 3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (Fla.1989); see also § 92.53, Fla. Stat. (2009). Likewise, Florida has provided

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure

608 So. 2d 478, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 709, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1869, 1992 WL 319938

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 5, 1992 | Docket: 64692020

Cited 1 times | Published

102, a new rule that tracks the language of section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1991), for the videotaping

Gaither v. State

581 So. 2d 922, 1991 WL 95628

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 7, 1991 | Docket: 1683898

Cited 1 times | Published

required to testify at trial, as required by section 92.53(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Additionally, the

State v. Asfour

555 So. 2d 1280, 1990 WL 132

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 1990 | Docket: 1724471

Cited 1 times | Published

90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1987),[1] or section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1987),[2]*1282 was applicable

State v. Diamond

553 So. 2d 1185, 1988 WL 86349

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 28, 1989 | Docket: 1675668

Cited 1 times | Published

victims under age 16; limits on interviews. Section 92.53 Sexual abuse or child abuse case; videotaping

RON ORLANDO FIGUEROA v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2023 | Docket: 67891577

Published

factual assertions.” Id. 4 Feller involved section 92.53, which concerns videotaped testimony as opposed

In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure – Corrected Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 15, 2016 | Docket: 4553213

Published

See ch. 2016-199, § 1, Laws of Fla. (amending section 92.53, Fla. Stat. (2015)). The Committee also proposes

In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

200 So. 3d 758, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 381, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2036, 2016 WL 4916758

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 2016 | Docket: 4422157

Published

ch.2016-199, § 1, Laws of Fla. (amending section 92.53, Fla. Stat. (2015)). The Committee also proposes

Ritchie v. State

720 So. 2d 261, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12305, 1998 WL 658289

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 28, 1998 | Docket: 64784080

Published

testimony in the presence of appellant. We agree. Section 92.53(1), Florida Statutes (1997), allows the use

Savage v. State

643 So. 2d 1211, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 10401, 1994 WL 577403

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 24, 1994 | Docket: 64751525

Published

that the applicable standard is contained in section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1993), which requires the

Sigmon v. State

641 So. 2d 847, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 311, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 913, 1994 WL 245657

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 9, 1994 | Docket: 64750492

Published

when it fails to make the findings required by section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1989), prior to allowing

Sigmon v. State

622 So. 2d 57, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7577, 1993 WL 264686

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 19, 1993 | Docket: 64697985

Published

the videotape testimony of the victim under section 92.53, Florida Statutes,1 in lieu of live testimony

Disinger v. State

569 So. 2d 824, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8364, 1990 WL 165350

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 1990 | Docket: 64654308

Published

ensure that the defendant can see the witness. Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), allows videotaping

Leggett v. State

548 So. 2d 249, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1348, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3097, 1989 WL 57873

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 2, 1989 | Docket: 64644623

Published

in granting the state’s motion, pursuant to Section 92.53(1), Florida Statutes, to allow videotaping of