S.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.C. v. State

837 So. 2d 1159, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2025, 2003 WL 366750

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 2003

DocketNo. 02-2369

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 837 So. 2d 1159 (S.C. 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

S.C. v. State, 837 So. 2d 1159, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2025, 2003 WL 366750 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues, in this appeal of an order adjudicating him a delinquent child, the trial judge erred in determining that the four year old alleged victim was competent to testify. Appellant also claims the trial judge erred in admitting child hearsay testimony through the child’s mother and a treating physician. Because we decide the first issue in favor of appellant, we need not reach these additional claims.

When the competency of a child witness is at issue, as it was here, the trial judge must determine whether the child is capable of observing, recohecting, and narrating facts, and whether the child has a moral sense of the duty to tell the truth. See Griffin v. State, 526 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lloyd v. State, 524 So.2d 396, 400 (Fla.1988). Here, the trial judge failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether the alleged child victim possessed a moral sense of duty to tell the truth prior to finding her competent to testify. Seccia v. State, 689 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding for a new trial when the trial judge failed to conduct a sufficient competency examination to establish a child witness was capable of observing, recollecting, and narrating facts, and had a moral sense of duty to tell the truth). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s adjudication and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BARFIELD, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues, in this appeal of an order adjudicating him a delinquent child, the trial judge erred in determining that the four year old alleged victim was competent to testify. Appellant also claims the trial judge erred in admitting child hearsay testimony through the child’s mother and a treating physician. Because we decide the first issue in favor of appellant, we need not reach these additional claims.

When the competency of a child witness is at issue, as it was here, the trial judge must determine whether the child is capable of observing, recohecting, and narrating facts, and whether the child has a moral sense of the duty to tell the truth. See Griffin v. State, 526 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Lloyd v. State, 524 So.2d 396, 400 (Fla.1988). Here, the trial judge failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into whether the alleged child victim possessed a moral sense of duty to tell the truth prior to finding her competent to testify. Seccia v. State, 689 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reversing and remanding for a new trial when the trial judge failed to conduct a sufficient competency examination to establish a child witness was capable of observing, recollecting, and narrating facts, and had a moral sense of duty to tell the truth). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s adjudication and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BARFIELD, POLSTON and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 So. 2d 1159, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2025, 2003 WL 366750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sc-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack