92.53
Videotaping the testimony of a victim or witness under age 18 or who has an intellectual disability.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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;
(c) Any party in a civil proceeding; or
(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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Jaggers v. State
Jaggers v. State (1988)
“The testimonies of Jaggers' daughter and stepdaughter were introduced at trial by means of their video taped depositions, conducted after a hearing pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985). [1] At that hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the guardian ad litem…”
Glendening v. State (1988)
“Prior to trial, the state served a motion to videotape the child's testimony for introduction at trial pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985). Section 92.”
Feller v. State (1994)
“" The state attorney responded that this Court had upheld section 92.53 as constitutional and noted the statutory requirement that specific findings be made by the court.”
Blanton v. State (2008)
“Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (2006), details just how the defendant's right to confront and *158 the child's right not to be harmed are achieved.”
Maryland v. Craig (1990)
“11, § 3511 (1987); Fla. Stat. § 92.53 (1989); Haw. Rev. Stat.”
Barton v. State (1997)
“At a subsequent hearing, defense counsel objected to the videotaping on the grounds that Kouis was unqualified to testify as an expert; that there was no evidence of a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer moderate emotional or mental harm due to the defendant's…”
Feller v. State (1993)
“, to give her trial testimony by videotape, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1989). Having thoroughly considered appellant's arguments on these points, we find no reversible error.”
Leggett v. State (1990)
“The child was permitted to give videotaped testimony rather than personally appearing in court, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1987). Leggett challenged the child's testimony on appeal.”
State v. Smith (2019)
“Nevertheless, we note in passing that § 29-1926(h) provides, in part, that "[n]othing in this section [regarding making accommodations] shall restrict the court from conducting the pretrial deposition or in camera proceedings in any manner .”
Hopkins v. State (1994)
“See § 92.53, Fla. Stat. (1987). Because that statute impacts the same constitutional guarantee of face-to-face confrontation that is at issue in the instant case, the reasoning in Leggett is applicable here.”
Gaither v. State (1991)
“On August 27, 1987, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the state's motion. At the onset of the hearing, defense counsel objected to the use of videotaped testimony unless the state proved the elements required for the findings described in section 92.”
Chambers v. State (1987)
“Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), previously section 90.”
— 92.53(1) — 10 cases
Feller v. State (1994)
“" The state attorney responded that this Court had upheld section 92.53 as constitutional and noted the statutory requirement that specific findings be made by the court.”
Glendening v. State (1988)
“Prior to trial, the state served a motion to videotape the child's testimony for introduction at trial pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985). Section 92.”
Gaither v. State (1991)
“On August 27, 1987, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the state's motion. At the onset of the hearing, defense counsel objected to the use of videotaped testimony unless the state proved the elements required for the findings described in section 92.”
Feller v. State (1993)
“, to give her trial testimony by videotape, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1989). Having thoroughly considered appellant's arguments on these points, we find no reversible error.”
Leggett v. State (1990)
“The child was permitted to give videotaped testimony rather than personally appearing in court, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1987). Leggett challenged the child's testimony on appeal.”
— 92.53(3) — 2 cases
Feller v. State (1993)
“, to give her trial testimony by videotape, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1989). Having thoroughly considered appellant's arguments on these points, we find no reversible error.”
— 92.53(4) — 5 cases
Glendening v. State (1988)
“Prior to trial, the state served a motion to videotape the child's testimony for introduction at trial pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985). Section 92.”
Blanton v. State (2008)
“Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (2006), details just how the defendant's right to confront and *158 the child's right not to be harmed are achieved.”
Chambers v. State (1987)
“Section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985), previously section 90.”
Castellanos v. DHRS (1989)
— 92.53(7) — 8 cases
Jaggers v. State (1988)
“The testimonies of Jaggers' daughter and stepdaughter were introduced at trial by means of their video taped depositions, conducted after a hearing pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1985). [1] At that hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the guardian ad litem…”
Feller v. State (1994)
“" The state attorney responded that this Court had upheld section 92.53 as constitutional and noted the statutory requirement that specific findings be made by the court.”
Leggett v. State (1990)
“The child was permitted to give videotaped testimony rather than personally appearing in court, pursuant to section 92.53, Florida Statutes (1987). Leggett challenged the child's testimony on appeal.”
Hopkins v. State (1992)
Barton v. State (1997)
“At a subsequent hearing, defense counsel objected to the videotaping on the grounds that Kouis was unqualified to testify as an expert; that there was no evidence of a substantial likelihood that the child would suffer moderate emotional or mental harm due to the defendant's…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.