Brown v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brown v. State

101 So. 3d 381, 2012 WL 5275471, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18688

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-6410

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 So. 3d 381 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 101 So. 3d 381, 2012 WL 5275471, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18688 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred in allowing Dr. Eric Jensen to testify telephonically at the appellant’s annual review trial held pursuant to section 394.918(3), Florida [382]*382Statutes (2010), of the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, also known as the Jimmy Ryce Act. There was no notary or other person authorized to administer an oath present with Dr. Jensen. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.530(d)(3) (“Testimony may be taken through communication equipment only if a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths in the witness’s jurisdiction is present with the witness and administers the oath consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction.”).

We cannot say that the error was harmless. Aside from Dr. Jensen’s testimony, there was no other evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant’s mental condition remained such that it was not safe for him to be at large and that, if released, he was likely to engage in acts of sexual violence. Cf. Golden & Cowan, P.A. v. Estate of Kosofsky, 45 So.3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court’s error in allowing telephonic testimony over the appellant’s objection and in violation of rule 2.530(d)(1) was harmless due to the existence of other independent evidence which would have supported the trial court’s decision). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new annual review trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court erred in allowing Dr. Eric Jensen to testify telephonically at the appellant’s annual review trial held pursuant to section 394.918(3), Florida [382]*382Statutes (2010), of the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act, also known as the Jimmy Ryce Act. There was no notary or other person authorized to administer an oath present with Dr. Jensen. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.530(d)(3) (“Testimony may be taken through communication equipment only if a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths in the witness’s jurisdiction is present with the witness and administers the oath consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction.”).

We cannot say that the error was harmless. Aside from Dr. Jensen’s testimony, there was no other evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant’s mental condition remained such that it was not safe for him to be at large and that, if released, he was likely to engage in acts of sexual violence. Cf. Golden & Cowan, P.A. v. Estate of Kosofsky, 45 So.3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the trial court’s error in allowing telephonic testimony over the appellant’s objection and in violation of rule 2.530(d)(1) was harmless due to the existence of other independent evidence which would have supported the trial court’s decision). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new annual review trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 So. 3d 381, 2012 WL 5275471, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 18688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack