Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Leggett (the requirements of the statute must be met); Jaggers (a court must specifically set forth reasons indicating the reliability of the statements); see also Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1994) (failure to make specific findings of fact under section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), which section impacts the same constitutional guarantees as those at issue here, constitutes reversible error)....

...We have for review Hopkins v. State, 608 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the First District Court of Appeal certified the following question as being one of great public importance: Does a trial court commit fundamental error by failing to make the findings required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes, prior to allowing a child witness to testify by means of closed circuit television? Id....

...We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the negative. James Harvey Hopkins was charged with three counts of sexual battery on a child less than twelve years old and one count of lewd and lascivious assault on the same child. 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....

...Michael DeMaria, a copy of which is attached. On appeal, Hopkins argued that the trial court's findings did not satisfy the statutory requirement that "[t]he court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section." Section 92.54(5), Fla....

...ailed to make a specific objection. Hopkins, 608 So.2d at 37. However, recognizing that no objection is required when a trial court commits fundamental error, the district court certified the issue of whether failure to make the findings required by section 92.54(5) constitutes fundamental error....

..."[F]or an error to be so fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal, the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process." State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1993). We find that failure to make the statutory findings required by section 92.54 *1375 does not rise to this level....

...In the instant case, the district court held that Hopkins' "very general objection," which was "`couched in terms of a confrontation rights argument,'" was not sufficient to preserve for review the issue of whether the trial court's findings satisfied the requirements of section 92.54(5)....

...testimony outside the presence — Under the circumstances of this case, we find that this objection properly preserved the issue for appellate review. Although the objection did not specifically address the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, it properly raised the issue of Hopkins' constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also art. I, § 16(a), Fla. Const. ("In all criminal prosecutions the accused ... shall have the right ... to confront at trial adverse witnesses... ."). As the district court correctly noted, the procedure authorized by section 92.54 impacts a criminal defendant's right to "a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact," a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause....

...mits videotaping of child's testimony, for purposes of admitting out-of-court statements of child victim of sexual abuse pursuant to hearsay exception) (quoting Chambers v. State, 504 So.2d 476, 477-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). The procedure outlined in section 92.54(5) is the means by which the court determines if the state's interest in protecting the child witness is so great as to excuse compliance with the right to confrontation....

...Craig , there must be case-specific findings of necessity in order to dispense with physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial. 497 U.S. at 855, 110 S.Ct. at 3168; see also State v. Ford, 626 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 1993). The case-specific findings mandated by section 92.54(5) are "`precisely what renders [the] statute constitutional, because the statute is closely tailored to protect the child victim only in those particular circumstances [where] it is deemed necessary.'" Leggett v. State, 565 So.2d 315, 318 (Fla. 1990) (quoting with approval Jaggers v. State, 536 So.2d 321, 329 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)). [2] Thus, the factual findings required by section 92.54 are necessarily related to the constitutional right to confrontation. Cf. Myles v. State, 602 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 1992) (discussing the interrelation of the findings required by Maryland v. Craig and those required by section 92.54); see also Feller v....

...ntinue arguing over the legal sufficiency of the court's factual basis for its ruling. Hopkins, 608 So.2d at 38 (Zehmer, J., dissenting). Turning to the merits of Hopkins' claim, we find the trial court's findings did not satisfy the requirements of section 92.54(5)....

...The trial court merely adopted and ratified the hearing testimony of the mother and the psychiatrist without specifying each evidentiary fact that supported its ruling. This ignores the statute's clear and unequivocal directive that the court "make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling." Section 92.54(5)....

...87 U.S. at 1022, 108 S.Ct. at 2803. In the instant case, neither the victim's testimony by closed circuit television nor her out-of-court statements were properly admitted due to the court's failure to make the specific findings required by sections 92.54 and 90.803(23)....

...We quash the decision below in part and approve it in part. We remand this cause with directions to reverse the judgment of conviction as to two counts and order a new trial. It is so ordered. BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), provides that a child under the age of 16 who is a victim of or witness to a sexual offense may testify outside the courtroom by means of closed-circuit television....

...t television "upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court or that such victim or witness is unavailable as defined in s. 90.804(1)." § 92.54(1). The court is also required to "make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section." § 92.54(5)....

...However, the court certified the questions of whether failure to make the specific findings constitutes fundamental error and what is the proper remedy for failure to make the findings. This Court recently addressed the same question of fundamental error as it relates to the specific findings required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes....

...tness who is under the age of 16 would suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if ... required to testify in open court ... the trial court may order the videotaping of the testimony of the victim or witness in a sexual abuse case... . [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. Section 92.54 is almost identical to section 92.53 in requiring a finding "that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court." § 92.54(1)....

...The counselor spoke generally about Cathy’s personality and reaction to her alleged abuse and the events that followed. (Tr. 81-84) When asked if she thought that Cathy would suffer at least moderate emotional trauma or harm if required to testify in open court — the approximate language of Fla.Stat. § 92.54(1) (1987) 2 — the counsel- *718 or answered in the affirmative....

...est of protecting child witnesses.” Id. at 1025 , 108 S.Ct. at 2805 . Justice O’Connor cited the Florida statute at issue in this case as an example of a state statute that required such findings. Id. 2. Applying Coy A plain reading of Fla.Stat. § 92.54 (1987) reveals a two-part legislative scheme....

...vision if, after a hearing, the court makes a “finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court” or that the child is unavailable. Fla.Stat. § 92.54(1) (1987). This procedure contemplates that the defendant and child may be in the same room during the child’s testimony. Fla. Stat. § 92.54 (3) (1987)....

...7 Of course, when the defendant and the child witness are in the same room during the child’s testimony, the defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation is not a concern. See Coy, 487 U.S. at 1023 , 108 S.Ct. at 2804 (O’Con-nor, J., concurring). The second aspect of section 92.54 allows the court to require the defendant to stay in the courtroom and watch on television while the child testifies from another room. 8 There is no indication in the statute as to when the defendant must remain in the courtroom or what separate judicial findings are a necessary prerequisite to such action. Clearly, section 92.54(4) affects the defendant’s confrontation rights....

...Rather, the inquiry in this case was little more than the legislative presumption of harm rejected by the Court in Coy . The motion, hearing and findings in this case appear from the record to have been merely a rote exercise to conform with the formality of section 92.54, although we are not convinced the court’s findings were even sufficient to satisfy the statute....

...that warrants subordinating the constitutional preference for face-to-face confrontation. Coy, 487 U.S. at 1024 , 108 S.Ct. at 2805 . No such examination was conducted in this case. It is true that Justice O’Connor specifically mentioned Fla.Stat. § 92.54(4) (1987) as a statute that might be adequate to satisfy constitutional scrutiny. Unfortunately, that dicta may have lulled some into a false sense of security. Most obviously, section 92.54(4), on its face, does not require any showing whatsoever to justify keeping the defendant in the courtroom while the child testifies by television from another room....

...tion of the operative statutory language does not strike us as the sort of “specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling” contemplated by the statute. Fla.Stat. § 92.-54(5) (1987). Justice O’Connor’s reference to section 92.54 in Coy was undoubtedly premised on an assumption that the trial court’s inquiry would comply with the requirements of subsection 92.54(5), that the court “make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section.” Such an analysis, if actually conducted by the state trial court, could rise to the level of a “case-specific f...

...rcome the defendant’s constitutional rights. Coy, 487 U.S. at 1025 , 108 S.Ct. at 2805 (O’Connor, J., concurring). We do not consider the state trial court’s mere recitation of the statutory language in this case to comply with the dictates of section 92.54(5)....

...the state affords Cumbie a new trial within a reasonable period of time. 1 . The state's "Motion for Use of Closed Circuit Television” did not mention the need for Cathy to testify outside the presence of the defendant. (R. 8, p. 45) 2 . Fla.Stat. § 92.54 (1987) provides: (1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court or that such victim or witness is unavailable as defined in s....

...the videotape equipment, an interpreter, and some other person who, in the opinion of the court, contributes to the well-being of the child and who will not be a witness in the case may be in the room during the recording of the testimony. Fla.Stat. § 92.54(3) (1987) (emphasis added). 8 .See Fla.Stat. § 92.54(4) (1987), supra note 2. 9 . We recognize that the trial court did not have the benefit of Coy during Cumbie’s trial. 10 . See Myles v. State, 602 So.2d 1278, 1281 (Fla.1992) (specifically acknowledging that compliance with § 92.54 would not necessarily satisfy Maryland v....

...e years of age. At the subsequent jury trial, the court granted Myles the right to act as co-counsel, and also allowed one of the child-victims to testify via closed-circuit television from the judge's chambers. This last ruling was made pursuant to section 92.54(4), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides: During the child's testimony by closed circuit television, the court may require the defendant to view the testimony from the courtroom....

...The Craig requirements are not precisely the same as those provided in the child-witness statute. 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....

...mation that was constitutionally impermissible. Dooley raises as another point on appeal that the trial judge erred in allowing B.D. to testify via closed circuit television. The state concedes the trial court failed to make the findings required by section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Upon retrial, the trial court should follow the requirements of section 92.54(1) before B.D....

...s testimony outside the presence— Under the circumstances of this case, we find that this objection properly preserved the issue for appellate review. Although the objection did not specifically address the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, it properly raised the issue of Hopkins' constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S....

...foreign court, requesting that the foreign court (1) take evidence from a specific person within the foreign jurisdiction . . . and (2) return the testimony . . . for use in a pending case.” Black’s Law Dictionary 988 (9th ed. 2009); see also 22 C.F.R. § 92.54....

...Except in cases of fundamental error, this court will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised as the legal basis for the objection in the trial court.") In Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372 (Fla.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 findings under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Prior to the child's testimony, Hopkins objected to the child's being permitted to testify outside the presence of the jury and the defendant. Id. at 1375. The court held that "[a]lthough the objection did not specifically address the sufficiency of the factual findings under section 92.54, it properly raised the issue of Hopkins' constitutional right `to be confronted with the witnesses against him.'" Id. (quoting Amend. VI, U.S. Const.); Fla. R.App. P. 9.800(n). The court also held that "the factual findings required by section 92.54 are necessarily related to the constitutional right to confrontation." Id....

...ved. We conclude that Hopkins is distinguishable from the instant case because the holding in Hopkins was predicated on the defendant's assertion of his confrontation rights. The Hopkins court first addressed the trial court's lack of findings under section 92.54 and held that the defendant's confrontation clause objection encompassed the trial court's lack of findings as required under the statutory procedures intended to protect the defendant's right to confrontation....

...Testimony as to prior similar acts was thus relevant and material as to these issues, and properly received into evidence. In allowing appellant's stepdaughter to testify by closed circuit television outside of appellant's physical presence the court complied with the requirements of section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes, and made the necessary findings regarding emotional or mental harm to the stepdaughter....

...Unlike the procedure which the United States Supreme Court rejected in Coy v. Iowa, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988), the present case involves individualized findings as to the necessity for protecting the particular witness. The concurring opinion in Coy expressly cited section 92.54, Florida Statutes, as an example of an appropriate procedure for effectuating society's interest in protecting child witnesses. The court fully complied with the requirements of section 92.54 in the present case, and appellant's stepdaughter was properly allowed to testify by closed circuit television....

...defense also argued in substance that the child witness was not "unavailable" for purposes of subsection 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989); defendant contended that the child could testify by closed circuit television pursuant to the procedure of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Khan argues that Wahid acted unreasonably by failing to pursue letters rogatory, but he offers no reason to think that such pursuit would have been successful. Letters rogatory “rest entirely upon the comity of courts towards each other.” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54....

...Gen., and Angelica D. Zayas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ. PER CURIAM. The State concedes that the trial court made insufficient findings of fact before allowing the victim to testify by closed-circuit television. See § 92.54(5), Fla....

...Further, appellant was given an opportunity to communicate with his lawyer before his lawyer cross examined the child victim. We find no error in appellant's third contention. The trial court neither violated the express language nor principles of Section 92.54(4), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Appellant challenges his five-count conviction for lewd and lascivious assault and sexual battery on his six-year-old daughter. Three points are asserted as error: (1) the trial court failed to make the specific findings on the record, required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989), as a predicate for allowing the minor victim to testify before a jury via closed circuit television, (2) the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on count III of the five-count information should hav...

...child to testify via television. In support of his ruling the judge stated, on the record: As to the second argument, the use of closed circuit television in proceedings involving sexual offenses against victims under the age of 16, Florida Statute 92.54(1), I'm going to order the use of the closed circuit television to enable the victim to testify outside the presence of her father because I find specifically that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm [if] require[d] ... to testify in open court... . We need not decide whether the trial court's on-the-record findings contained the specificity required by section 92.54(5), in that neither the physician's fact-specific *1015 testimony to that effect, which the court adopted, nor the trial judge's findings were contemporaneously challenged for competency or sufficiency....

...number of state statutes, our cases suggest that the strictures of the Confrontation Clause may give way to the compelling state interest of protecting child witnesses." 108 S.Ct. at 2805 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 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. We agree entirely with Justice O'Connor's analysis. The question in the instant case therefore becomes whether an exception to the constitutional right of physical confrontation — namely, compliance with Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987) — has been shown on this record....

...he immediate presence of the defendant — provided the trial court (1) makes a case-specific finding that "there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court," § 92.54(1), Fla. Stat. (1987), and (2) makes "specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its [above-stated] ruling," § 92.54(5), Fla....

...would suffer "at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court," made no case-specific finding to that effect, and made no findings of fact on the record to support such a case-specific ruling — all of which are required by Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987) in order to allow a child abuse victim to testify via closed-circuit television....

...ng of necessity required by the above statute. Indeed, the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment presupposes that a witness will have precisely such an emotional experience as an incentive for telling the truth. This being so, it is clear that Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987), was not complied with below, and, accordingly, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by allowing C.S....

...824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), and, accordingly, reverse and remand the cause for a new trial. Upon remand, however, the state may, if it chooses, seek to allow C.S. to testify via closed-circuit television — provided the requirements established by Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1987), as interpreted by this opinion, are followed....

...rights of all interested parties, including appellant and the child victim, would be served by a new trial. [3] This court has previously certified to the supreme court the question of whether the failure to make findings under a companion statute, section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989) (allowing closed circuit television testimony by a child abuse victim), constitutes fundamental error....

...bjections when the videotape was offered. To so infer, it seems to me, is contrary to the purpose of the statutory scheme requiring all such objections to be made and ruled on pretrial outside the presence of the jury. In my view, sections 92.53 and 92.54 specify special procedures that differ considerably from the ordinary situation involving the offer of evidence and objection to its admissibility during trial....

...[1] Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel arises from his allegations that trial counsel failed to object to the fact that there had not been a hearing held or specific findings of fact made on the state's motion filed pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (requesting that the minor victims of Appellant's crime be allowed to testify by closed-circuit television), and that counsel failed to assert Appellant's speedy trial rights and to file a timely motion for discharge....

...He offered that he would exit the courtroom and observe her testimony through closed circuit television. He wanted the jury to observe her demeanor while testifying. The court denied the motion, agreeing with the state that the jury would still be able to observe her demeanor over the television. Section 92.54, Florida Statutes, authorizes the court to allow a child to testify outside of the courtroom by closed circuit television if the court determines that testifying in court would result in at least moderate emotional or mental harm to the *547 child....

...urt statements. We reject the appellant's other claims of error because we find them to be lacking in merit, not preserved for review or merely harmless. We affirm the appellant's conviction and sentences and certify a question to the supreme court. 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....

...as persuaded the judge that "there is a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court or that such victim or witness is unavailable as defined in section 90.804(1)." § 92.54(1), Fla. Stat. Section 92.54(5) requires the judge to detail the *35 reasons for his ruling with these words: "The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section." Pursuant to section 92.54, the prosecutor sought to present the trial testimony of the alleged child victim via closed circuit television....

...attached to it a transcript of the testimony given by the mother and DeMaria at the hearing. The trial judge's recitation of the statutory standard and explanation that his ruling was based upon the testimony at the hearing might not have satisfied section 92.54(5)'s requirement of specific findings as to the basis for his ruling....

...2d DCA 1988), the state had filed a motion under section 92.53, Florida Statutes, to videotape the testimony of two children outside the presence of the defendant and use the videotape at trial in lieu of the children's live testimony. Section 92.53 sanctions such a procedure, but, as in section 92.54(5) at issue here, the trial court must "make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling." Section 92.53(7), Fla....

...1990), the supreme court approved this language from Jaggers and reversed an attempt by this court in Leggett v. State, 548 So.2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to limit Jaggers to cases in which the record reveals inadequate evidentiary support for the judge's ruling. Section 92.54, like its companion, section 92.53, impacts a defendant's right to a "face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact," a right which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause....

...the use of a special procedure that permits the child to testify at trial in the absence of a face-to-face confrontation with the defendant. Maryland v. Craig , at 855-56, 110 S.Ct. at 3169, 111 L.Ed.2d at 685. The case-specific findings required by section 92.54(5) serve the same purpose as those required by section 92.53(7); they render the statute constitutional and the consequent denial of the defendant's right to face-to-face confrontation permissible....

...Hopkins. The state acknowledges that this objection was "couched in terms of a confrontation rights argument," but the state contends that it was not sufficient to preserve the issue of whether the trial court's findings satisfied the requirements of section 92.54(5)....

...e the issue for review in this court. In so holding, we rely upon Sanders v. State, 568 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), wherein the court held that it was not required to decide whether the trial judge's findings contained the specificity required by section 92.54(5), because the findings were not contemporaneously challenged for competency or sufficiency....

...It failed to advise the court and opposing counsel of the specific way in which the relevant statute had not been satisfied. As in Jackson, had the appellant's counsel made a specific objection, it could have been disposed of quite simply by the trial court making additional findings sufficient to clearly satisfy section 92.54(5)....

...purposes of appellate review. Of course, no objection is required when a trial court has committed fundamental error. We do not conclude that the error asserted here was fundamental, although we recognize the significance of a judge's findings under section 92.54(5) to the constitutionality of the statutory scheme....

...See Leggett, 565 So.2d at 318; and Gaither v. State, 581 So.2d 922, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (suggesting that a trial court's failure to make the case-specific findings of fact required by section 92.53(7) may be fundamental error). We also recognize that section 92.54 authorizes a procedure which impacts an accused's constitutional right to face-to-face confrontation with trial witnesses; a right so fundamental that four members of the United States Supreme Court would recently have held it subject to no exception....

...at 3171-76, 111 L.Ed.2d at 688-94 (Scalia, J., dissenting in an opinion joined by Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens). We therefore certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance: Does a trial court commit fundamental error by failing to make the findings required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes, prior to allowing a child witness to testify by means of closed circuit television? The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing various witnesses to testify as to the out-of-court statements of the alleged child victim....

...As to those points, I agree, for the reasons discussed in the majority opinion, that the trial court *38 failed to make the necessary findings of fact required by section 90.803(23) to support the admissibility of the child witness's hearsay statements and the necessary findings required by section 92.54 to support the court's decision to allow the child witness to testify by closed circuit video....

...I do not agree that the objecting party, in this case defense counsel, in order to preserve the objection for appellate review, must specify each deficiency in the trial court's findings of fact after they are stated on the record by the court as required by sections 90.803(23) and 92.54....

...State, 456 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), involves different considerations than does compliance with the statutory requirements to set forth on the record findings of fact sufficient to admit otherwise inadmissible testimony under sections 90.803(23) and 92.54....

...The ground of the objection to an expert's qualifications, as well as the professional competency of the evidence being offered, of necessity must be specified at the time the expert testimony is offered. The statutory requirement in sections 90.803(23) and 92.54 that the basis of the court's ruling be set forth on the record serves an entirely different purpose, as previously discussed....

...citizens to the United States for perjury; and Andrea's unavailability to testify in the United States is due to the defendant's failure to sign the necessary documentation for Andrea to travel to the United States. In addition, the State, citing to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2007), argued that the defendant's motion must be denied because he cannot establish that there is a "substantial likelihood" that Andrea "will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm due to the presence of...

...ia satellite from Ecuador. The State seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari and quashal of the trial court's order. II. Legal Analysis The trial court's order allowing the defendant's minor children to testify via satellite from Ecuador cites to section 92.54, which provides in part as follows: (1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child ......

...who is a victim or witness be taken outside of the courtroom and shown by means of closed circuit television. .... (5) The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this section. In the instant case, section 92.54 is inapplicable because the defendant's motion does not allege that the "harm" the children would suffer would be as a result of testifying in the presence of the defendant. Rather, the defendant contends that the children would suffer "harm" if returned to the victim upon entering the United States, as required by the family court custody order. Therefore, section 92.54 does not apply....

...ngdoing and/or inaction, the trial court erred in determining that the *1170 defendant's minor children were "unavailable," and in granting the defendant's motion to allow the children to testify via satellite transmission. Although we conclude that section 92.54 does not apply in the instant case because the defendant does not allege that his minor children will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if they are required to testify in open court due to the defendant's presence, and t...

...ering, are affirmed, in that the evidence was admissible or the alleged error was not preserved for appellate review. In reversing the trial court's order permitting the child victim to testify by closed-circuit television, which is authorized under Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989), we initially agree with the state that because the appellant did not object to the trial court's failure to make the specific findings required by section 92.54(5), he waived this error for purposes of appeal....

...1st DCA 1992), review granted, 618 So.2d 1368 (Fla. 1993). As in Hopkins, however, we certify the following question to the supreme court as a question of great public importance: DOES A TRIAL COURT COMMIT FUNDAMENTAL ERROR BY FAILING TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 92.54(5), FLORIDA STATUTES, PRIOR TO ALLOWING A CHILD WITNESS TO TESTIFY BY MEANS OF CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION? Our conclusion in this regard, however, does not apply to the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence undergirding those findings....

...You come in the courtroom — in the chambers, and it will be broadcast out here. The judge, counsel and the witness went into chambers and the witness's testimony was broadcast over a speaker into the courtroom where appellant was required to remain. *258 There was no effort in this case to comply with the requirements of Section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (1987), in order to justify the denial of appellant's right of confrontation....

...[1] There was no finding of "a substantial likelihood that the child will suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in open court." See Fricke v. State, 561 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1990). In addition, the court permitted the use of a speaker only, not closed circuit television as required by Section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes, (1987). Further, the judge failed to insure that he and the persons in the room where the child was testifying, and the defendant could communicate by any appropriate electronic method as required by Section 92.54(4), Florida Statutes, (1987)....

...The testimony established without controversy or contradiction that should E.H. be required to testify in the presence of her mother in open court, she would suffer tremendous emotional harm. The trial court denied the motion, finding that E.H. does not fall within the parameters of section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...to testify in open court ... the trial court may order that the testimony of a child under the age of 16 or person with mental retardation who is a victim or witness be taken outside of the courtroom and shown by means of closed circuit television. Section 92.54(1), Fla. Stat. (2000). The trial court found that the evidence presented satisfied the "at least moderate emotional or mental harm" element of section 92.54. However, because E.H. was seventeen and was not mentally retarded, the court ruled that she was not entitled to *302 the protection of section 92.54 and would have to testify in person before her mother....

...The court found itself "legally precluded" from granting the relief requested, and with "no choice" but to deny the requested relief. The trial court's order denying the relief and its order on rehearing/clarification are well-reasoned and thorough, but were entered under a misapprehension of the law. Section 92.54 does not provide the sole means by which a trial court may exercise its inherent authority and its discretion to protect a child witness....

...The Public Defenders make three contentions regarding proposed rule 8.104 which allows a child witness to testify by closed-circuit television. First, the Public Defenders argue that the proposed rule is too broad because it goes beyond the language of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1991), which allows a child to give closed-circuit television testimony in cases involving sex *479 ual offenses against victims under the age of sixteen. In contrast, the proposed rule allows for such testimony in both sexual offenses as well as “child abuse” cases. We find that the rule should track the language of section 92.54, thus we delete the inclusion of “child abuse” from the proposed rule. Second, both the Public Defenders and the Juvenile Court Rules Committee agree that rule 8.104(c) should be amended to track the language of section 92.54 to include that the “defendant child’s attorney” be present at the closed-circuit testimony. We agree, and add the “defendant child’s attorney” to proposed subsection (c) of rule 8.104. Finally, the Public Defenders point out that rule 8.104(a)(2) does track the language of section 92.54 which allows a trial court to order an “unavailable” witness to give testimony by closed-circuit television. However, they argue that subsection 8.104(a)(2), like section 92.54, has the strange effect of allowing the court to take a witness’s testimony by closed-circuit television, if the witness is unavailable as defined by section 90.804(1)....

...sical or mental illness. In any event, logic dictates that an “unavailable” witness will not be testifying on closed-circuit television; thus we delete proposed subsection (a)(2) of rule 8.104. While the revised rule 8.104 tracks the language of section 92.54, it is different from the statute because it does not contain the confusing language allowing the trial court to order the close-circuit testimony of an “unavailable” witness....

make specific findings of fact mandated by section 92.54 1, Florida Statutes (1999), prior to allowing

...2d DCA 1989) (the omission of the findings required to introduce hearsay testimony under section 90.803(23)(c), Florida Statutes (1987) (is not fundamental error, at least in a case in which the child testified at trial)) with Sanders v. State, 568 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ((alleged violation of section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes (1989), is not fundamental error))....

...3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (Fla.1989); see also § 92.53, Fla. Stat. (2009). Likewise, Florida has provided by statute that a child or a person with "mental retardation" who may suffer harm by testifying in open court may testify by closed circuit television. See § 92.54, Fla....

...es involving incompetency or insanity; (3) rule 8.100(c) (general provisions for hearings), to conform to section 960.001(1)(d)3, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992); (4) rule 8.104 (testimony by closed-circuit television), to conform to 1993 revisions to section 92.54, Florida Statutes; (5) rule 8.120 (post-disposition hearing), to conform to section 960.001(1)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp....

age of twelve. The State moved, pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2010), to place a projector

...[5] See, for example, the following sections from Florida Statutes: Section 914.16 — Child abuse and sexual abuse victims under age 16; limits on interviews. Section 92.53 — Sexual abuse or child abuse case; videotaping of testimony of victim or witness under age 16. Section 92.54 — Use of closed circuit television in proceedings involving sexual offenses against victims under the age of 16....

...On appeal Overholt argues that the conditions under which the victim testified violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him and otherwise denied him a fair trial. Overholt argues that the court should have followed the procedure of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2012), and used a closed circuit television....

...ed by the statute and was inherently prejudicial. McLaughlin, 79 So.3d at 228 -29 (citing State v. Parker, 276 Neb. 661 , 757 N.W.2d 7, 18-19 (2008)). Reversed and Remanded for a new trial. GROSS, J., and HANZMAN, MICHAEL, Associate Judge, concur. . Section 92.54 provides: (1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child ......

...case. Additionally, it was error for the court not to make a specific finding, in the record, that there was a substantial likelihood that K.G. would "suffer at least moderate emotional or mental harm if required to testify in court," as required by Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1989)....

...l as well as the right to confront witnesses against him. We affirm. 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....

...Defense counsel made a general Confrontation Clause argument but offered nothing to refute the social worker’s opinion. The court granted the State’s motion but did not make specific findings, despite a statutory requirement that it do so. See § 92.54(5), Fla....

...t his accuser must give way to the State’s interest in sparing child victims of sexual crimes the further trauma of in-court testimony.” Ritchie v. State, 720 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Consistent with that interest, sections 92.53 and 92.54, Florida Statutes, allow children to testify by closed-circuit television or pre-recorded video in certain circumstances....

...ne whether use of the one-way closed circuit television procedure is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify.”); Leggett v. State, 565 So. 2d 315, 318 (Fla. 1990) (“[T]he factual findings required by section 92.54 are necessarily related to the constitutional right to confrontation.”). First, a trial court’s failure to make case-specific findings as required by statute can sometimes require reversal....

...ourt abused its discretion by failing to provide him a mechanism for communicating with counsel during the child’s testimony. Although defendants have “the right to immediate and direct communication with counsel conducting cross-examination,” § 92.54(4), Fla....

...9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ BILBREY, J., concurring in result. I fully concur with the majority decision as to defense counsel’s failure to preserve the trial judge’s lack of case-specific findings as required by section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes. As to the failure to provide a means for Jonathan Knight to communicate with his counsel during the out of court testimony by the child victim, I believe this issue was preserved. Knight’s counsel raised the issue during the hearing conducted under section 92.54, and Knight personally raised the issue with the trial judge after counsel left the courtroom to set up the victim’s video testimony. Knight should have been provided “immediate and direct communication” with his counsel during the victim’s testimony. § 92.54(4). However, I believe any error in this regard was harmless....

...The trial judge merely “ratified the hearing testimony” of the mental health counselor, which “ignores the statute’s clear and unequivocal directive” that the court make “ ‘specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for the ruling.’” Id. at 1376 , quoting section 92.54(5), Florida Statutes....

...c Sixth Amendment and other objections were made at the trial, including the objection that the above-quoted findings by Judge Bowden were insufficient under the statute. . Although Hopkins involved closed-circuit televising of trial testimony under section 92.54, Florida Statutes, the court applied the same standards for review of the sufficiency of the findings as are required for section 92.53 testimony....

in part, a confrontation clause issue under section 92.54, Florida Statutes, which provides that a trial

...nt Attorney General, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. LINDSEY, J.  Appellant, Ron Figueroa, appeals his conviction following a jury trial. Figueroa was found guilty of abusing his minor stepdaughter. Pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2022), Appellee, the State, moved to allow the eleven-year-old child to testify through closed-circuit television (“CCTV”) rather than in open court....

...BACKGROUND Figueroa was charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious molestation, one count of sexual battery, and one count of attempted sexual battery. Before trial, the State filed a motion to allow the child to testify via CCTV pursuant to section 92.54, which provides as follows: (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 ....

...in the presence of the defendant is more than de minimis, i.e., more than mere nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify. Myles v. State, 602 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 1992) (footnote omitted). The factual findings required by section 92.54 are necessarily related to the 1 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ....

...t complied with the constitutional and statutory requirements to make the necessary case- specific findings. 2 In Myles, the Florida Supreme Court observed that the Craig findings were not the precisely the same as those in a prior version of section 92.54. Myles, 602 So. 2d at 1281. For example, section 92.54(1), Florida Statutes (1991), did not specify that the harm must be caused by the presence of the defendant. Myles, 602 So. 2d at 1281. The current version of the statute, however, includes this causation requirement. See § 92.54(1), Fla....

...suffer at least moderate emotional harm due to the presence of Figueroa if made to testify in open court. Next, Figueroa argues that the trial court did not give adequate case- specific findings on the record to explain why CCTV testimony was necessary in accordance with section 92.54(5) and Craig....

...Moreover, the Court noted that there were “contradictions and conflicts regarding some of the psychologist’s factual assertions.” Id. 4 Feller involved section 92.53, which concerns videotaped testimony as opposed to CCTV testimony. However, both sections 92.53(7) and 92.54(5), the CCTV statute relevant here, require “specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for [the trial court’s] ruling.” 8  Figueroa also relies on Dennis v....

...The court may require the defendant to view the testimony from outside the presence of the child by means of a two-way mirror or another similar method that will ensure that the defendant can observe and hear the testimony of the child in person, but that the child cannot hear or see the defendant.” Section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1985), provides for the use of closed circuit television to obtain testimony of a victim or witness under sixteen, and section 92.55 allows the court to enter any order necessary to protect the rights of all parties or the defendant in any criminal action....

...Lewine was charged with committing a lewd act or assault in the presence of a child in violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1991). Pursuant to Faretta , the court allowed Lewine to conduct his own defense and appointed standby counsel at Lewine’s request for co-counsel. Pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1991), the victim testified via closed circuit television....

...Lewine does not contend that his right to confront witnesses was abridged by the trial court’s procedure — the issue brought by the defendant in Craig — but Craig is relevant to the instant case because Craig recognized the interest of the state in protecting a child-victim witness. In section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1991), among others, Florida has expressed such an interest....

this case to comply with the requirements of Section 92.-54(1), Florida Statutes (1987), in order to justify

...ior to allowing a child witness to testify by means of videotape. On authority of Feller we approve the decision under review. See also Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1994) (finding no fundamental error in failure to make findings required by section 92.54 before allowing child witness to testify by closed circuit television)....

...Coderch’s motions to quash and to dismiss. 7 “In its broader sense in international practice, the term letters rogatory denotes a formal request from a court in which an action is pending, to a foreign court to perform some judicial act.” 22 C.F.R. § 92.54. 7  Case: 18-12615 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 8 of 25 procedural rules....

testify by closed-circuit television under section 92.54, Florida Statutes, that was “couched in terms

...1 We find no error in connection with the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument, and do so without further comment. The following facts are necessary to the disposition of the issue on appeal. After the trial started, the State made a motion pursuant to section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2010) 2 , to place a screen between the witness stand and McLaughlin in the courtroom to block the victims’ view of McLaughlin....

...“Inherent prejudice, on the other hand, requires a showing by the defendant that there was an unacceptable risk of impermissible factors coming into play.” Id. (citations omitted). We begin our analysis by noting, as did our sister court in Hughes v. State, 819 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), that “section 92.54 provides for the use of closed circuit television but not a partition.” 4 Id....

...Section 29 — 1926[ 5 ] specifically provides for various means of obtaining the victim’s testimony through pretrial videotaping or closed-circuit video from another room. It does not, actually, make any reference to using a screen in the courtroom. Id. at 18. We conclude that section 92.54 does not authorize the use of a screen in the man *229 ner employed in this case, and that doing so lent undue credibility to the witnesses. The proper procedure would have been to have the witnesses testify outside the courtroom via closed circuit television, after the court concluded that the victims would suffer emotional or mental harm due to the presence of McLaughlin. See § 92.54, Fla....

...4th DCA 2007) ("The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of state criminal defendants to be tried by an impartial jury. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the essence of the Sixth Amendment right ....”) (quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)). . Section 92.54 provides: (1) Upon motion and hearing in camera and upon a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the child ......

...testimony by closed circuit television, 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 child ... but shall ensure that the child ... cannot hear or see the defendant. 92.54(1), (4) Fla....

...The boy was three years old at the time of the offense and suffered a broken collarbone, broken arm, and serious bruising. . Counsel may have had tactical reasons for agreeing to the use of the screen as opposed to having the child testify via closed circuit television as permitted by section 92.54, Florida Statutes (2008)....

...impinge upon the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Id. at 852–53. We note that the Florida Legislature has enacted statutory guidelines for audio-video communication technology in proceedings involving minor victims or witnesses. Although section 92.54, Florida Statutes, authorizes remote testimony in certain circumstances, it still requires that a defendant retain the ability to observe and hear the testimony....

...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. § 92.54(4), Fla. Stat. (2022) (emphasis added). On the record before us, the trial court’s decision to remove Appellant did not conform to the standards in Craig or adhere to the procedure prescribed under section 92.54....

...ght to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.’” Conner v. State, 748 So. 2d 950, 955 (Fla. 1999) (quoting Brown v. State, 471 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 1985)). While remote witness testimony is permitted in certain situations (under Craig and section 92.54, Florida Statutes), the defendant must still be able to observe the witness’s testimony and communicate freely with counsel....

...1st DCA 1999)(concluding that “any error in that regard was clearly harmless in light of appellant’s admission”). On the second issue, we agree with Appellant that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 92.54, Florida Statutes (1997)(permitting the use of closed circuit television in proceedings involving victims or witnesses under the age of 16). See Hopkins v. State, 682 So.2d 1372, 1376 (Fla.l994)(holding that the trial court’s findings were insufficient under section 92.54(5)). Moreover, section 92.54 provides for the use of closed circuit television but not a partition....