A.C.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.C.S. v. State

518 So. 2d 457, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 179, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 93, 1988 WL 1074

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 14, 1988

DocketNo. 87-938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 518 So. 2d 457 (A.C.S. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.C.S. v. State, 518 So. 2d 457, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 179, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 93, 1988 WL 1074 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

The juvenile defendant appeals an adjudication of delinquency on charges of aggravated battery, battery and petit theft. We reverse.

The trial court erred in admitting into evidence, for substantive purposes, the discovery deposition of the alleged victim. Depositions taken for purposes of discovery may not be used as substantive evidence in a criminal trial. State v. James, 402 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1981). The state concedes the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, like the Rules of Criminal Procedure, provide that a deposition taken for discovery purposes may be used only “for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.” Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.070(d)(3). Cf Rule 8.070(e).

Because the trial court expressly relied on the deposition in determining delinquency, we cannot agree with the state’s contention that the error in admitting the deposition was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence is otherwise insufficient to support the adjudication, we reverse with directions to discharge the defendant.

REVERSED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORFINGER, Judge.

The juvenile defendant appeals an adjudication of delinquency on charges of aggravated battery, battery and petit theft. We reverse.

The trial court erred in admitting into evidence, for substantive purposes, the discovery deposition of the alleged victim. Depositions taken for purposes of discovery may not be used as substantive evidence in a criminal trial. State v. James, 402 So.2d 1169 (Fla.1981). The state concedes the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, like the Rules of Criminal Procedure, provide that a deposition taken for discovery purposes may be used only “for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness.” Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.070(d)(3). Cf Rule 8.070(e).

Because the trial court expressly relied on the deposition in determining delinquency, we cannot agree with the state’s contention that the error in admitting the deposition was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence is otherwise insufficient to support the adjudication, we reverse with directions to discharge the defendant.

REVERSED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 So. 2d 457, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 179, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 93, 1988 WL 1074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acs-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack