Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 92.54 (2025)

Use of closed-circuit television and audio-video communication technology in proceedings involving a victim or witness under the age of 18 or who has an intellectual disability.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

92.54 Use of closed-circuit television and audio-video communication technology in proceedings involving a victim or witness under the age of 18 or who has an intellectual disability.—

(1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that a victim or witness under the age of 18 or who has an intellectual disability will 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 that the testimony of the victim or witness be taken outside of the courtroom and shown by means of closed-circuit television or through audio-video communication technology.

(2) The motion may be filed by the victim or witness; the attorney, parent, legal guardian, or guardian ad litem of the victim or witness; the prosecutor; the defendant or the defendant’s counsel; or the trial judge on his or her own motion.

(3) Only the judge, the prosecutor, the defendant, the attorney for the defendant, the operators of the videotape equipment, an interpreter, and some other person who, in the opinion of the court, contributes to the well-being of the child or the person who has an intellectual disability and who will not be a witness in the case may be in the room during the recording of the testimony.

(4) During the victim’s or witness’s testimony by closed-circuit television or through audio-video communication technology, the court may require the defendant to view the testimony from the courtroom. In such a case, the court shall permit the defendant to observe and hear the testimony of the victim or witness, but must ensure that the victim or witness cannot hear or see the defendant. The defendant’s right to assistance of counsel, which includes the right to immediate and direct communication with counsel conducting cross-examination, must be protected and, upon the defendant’s request, such communication must be provided by any appropriate electronic method.

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

History.—s. 6, ch. 85-53; s. 12, ch. 87-224; s. 2, ch. 93-131; s. 22, ch. 94-154; s. 1380, ch. 95-147; s. 5, ch. 2013-162; s. 2, ch. 2016-199; s. 8, ch. 2023-302.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 52 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1994). · cites it 20× “Pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), [1] the State filed a motion to present the trial testimony of the five-year-old victim by means of closed circuit television.”

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990). · cites it 2× “§ 54 -86g (1989); Fla. Stat. § 92.54 (1989); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-8-55 (Supp.”

Fricke v. State, 561 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). · cites it 14× “Justice O'Connor cited Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987), authorizing a child abuse witness to testify by closed-circuit television, as one of the state statutes which properly requires a case-specific finding.”

Kenneth Cumbie v. Harry K. Singletary, 991 F.2d 715 (11th Cir. 1993). · cites it 8× “Applying Coy A plain reading of Fla.Stat. § 92.54 (1987) reveals a two-part legislative scheme.”

Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988). · cites it 2× “1988); Fla. Stat. § 92.54 (4) (1987); Mass. Gen.”

Feller v. State, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1994). · cites it 6× “[2] Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), permits a child under the age of sixteen who is a victim of or witness to a sexual offense to testify via closed circuit television.”

Elwell v. State, 954 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). · cites it 5× “1994), Hopkins challenged both the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989) (the statute allowing a child to testify outside of the courtroom after the trial court has made specific findings of fact) and the sufficiency of the factual…”

Hopkins v. State, 608 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). · cites it 18× “Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), permits a trial judge to order that the testimony of a child victim or witness to a sexual offense be taken outside of the courtroom and shown to the jury by means of closed circuit television.”

Jonathan A. Knight v. State of Florida, 254 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). · cites it 11× “The morning of trial, the court considered the State’s request to allow the victim—Knight’s daughter—to testify through a closed-circuit television system pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes. The State began by explaining how the process would work: At trial, the child…”

State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1994). · cites it 2× “803(23)(a)(1) mandates that the trial judge, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, determine whether a hearsay statement is trustworthy and reliable by examining the "time, content, and circumstances" of the statement.”

McLaughlin v. State, 79 So. 3d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). · cites it 7× “See § 92.54, Fla. Stat. The State has made no attempt to establish that this inherently prejudicial practice was harmless and did not actually contribute to the jury’s verdict.”

Myles v. State, 602 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1992). · cites it 4× “The statute, for example, requires a substantial likelihood of at least moderate emotional or mental harm [4] if the child is required to testify in open court, § 92.54(1), Fla. Stat. (1991), but does not specify that the harm must be caused by the presence of the defendant.”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— 92.54(1) — 13 cases

Dooley v. State, 743 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Kenneth Cumbie v. Harry K. Singletary, 991 F.2d 715 (11th Cir. 1993). “Applying Coy A plain reading of Fla.Stat. § 92.54 (1987) reveals a two-part legislative scheme.”

Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1994). “Pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), [1] the State filed a motion to present the trial testimony of the five-year-old victim by means of closed circuit television.”

Myles v. State, 602 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1992). “The statute, for example, requires a substantial likelihood of at least moderate emotional or mental harm [4] if the child is required to testify in open court, § 92.54(1), Fla. Stat. (1991), but does not specify that the harm must be caused by the presence of the defendant.”

Feller v. State, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1994). “[2] Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), permits a child under the age of sixteen who is a victim of or witness to a sexual offense to testify via closed circuit television.”

— 92.54(3) — 1 case

Kenneth Cumbie v. Harry K. Singletary, 991 F.2d 715 (11th Cir. 1993). “Applying Coy A plain reading of Fla.Stat. § 92.54 (1987) reveals a two-part legislative scheme.”

— 92.54(4) — 8 cases

Kenneth Cumbie v. Harry K. Singletary, 991 F.2d 715 (11th Cir. 1993). “Applying Coy A plain reading of Fla.Stat. § 92.54 (1987) reveals a two-part legislative scheme.”

Jonathan A. Knight v. State of Florida, 254 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). “The morning of trial, the court considered the State’s request to allow the victim—Knight’s daughter—to testify through a closed-circuit television system pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes. The State began by explaining how the process would work: At trial, the child…”

Craig v. State, 560 A.2d 1120 (Md. 1989).

Myles v. State, 582 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

— 92.54(5) — 15 cases

Hopkins v. State, 608 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), permits a trial judge to order that the testimony of a child victim or witness to a sexual offense be taken outside of the courtroom and shown to the jury by means of closed circuit television.”

Sanders v. State, 568 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

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.