St. Petersburg Criminal Lawyer Blog
Child sexual battery cases often turn on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. The evidence offered must comply with the evidentiary rules; if it does not, its admission may violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. A recent ruling from a Florida court offers a detailed look at how judges evaluate evidentiary challenges and constitutional arguments in prosecutions involving allegations of long-term sexual abuse. If you are charged with a sex offense, it is in your best interest to talk to a St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorney about what evidence the State may use against you.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, the State charged the defendant with five offenses arising from the sexual abuse of a single minor victim over several years. The amended information included counts of sexual battery on a person less than twelve years of age, sexual battery on a minor between twelve and eighteen years old while in a position of familial or custodial authority, and transmission of child pornography.
Reportedly, the victim was born in 2007, and although the defendant believed he was her father, the victim’s mother testified he was not biologically related to her. The victim lived with the defendant during early childhood and again beginning in sixth grade. She testified that during both periods of custody, the defendant forced her to engage in various sexual acts, including oral sex, digital penetration, and vaginal intercourse.
It is alleged that the victim disclosed the abuse in May 2020 after texting her mother that the defendant had entered her bedroom late at night. Authorities responded and collected clothing and bedding from the victim’s room. Forensic testing later revealed DNA profiles overwhelmingly consistent with contributions from the victim and the defendant. Investigators also recovered a Facebook Messenger conversation containing sexually explicit messages from the defendant and a video depicting him placing his fingers in the victim’s vagina.
It is reported that the defendant denied the allegations at trial and testified on his own behalf. He challenged several pieces of evidence, objected to the jury instructions, and contested the relevance of certain testimony. A six-person jury convicted him on all counts. He appealed, raising claims involving fundamental error, evidentiary rulings, jury selection issues, and constitutional challenges.
Evidence Admissible in Sex Crime Cases
On appeal, the court first evaluated whether the admission of testimony about conduct occurring before the charged dates constituted fundamental error. The court noted that fundamental error arises only when an improper ruling affects the validity of the trial to such an extent that the conviction could not stand without it. Because Florida law allows the admission of other acts of child molestation when relevant and the State presented extensive evidence supporting each charged act, the court concluded no fundamental error occurred.
The court then examined the defendant’s argument that the trial court applied incorrect statutory definitions in its jury instructions. While acknowledging the error, the court held it was not fundamental because the evidence supported a conviction under both the earlier and later statutory definitions. The disputed language did not relate to an element actively contested at trial, and the conviction did not depend on the instruction.
The defendant also challenged the admission of testimony from the victim’s mother regarding past child support. The appellate court upheld the ruling, finding that the evidence directly addressed the defense theory that the allegations were fabricated due to a custody dispute. Because the testimony had probative value and explained context relevant to the defense strategy, it was properly admitted.
Next, the court rejected the argument that the defendant was denied due process when a prospective juror spoke privately with the trial judge outside the defendant’s presence. Defense counsel consented to the interaction, and the juror was later dismissed for unrelated reasons. The court found no reversible error. Finally, the court addressed the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a twelve-person jury. Because Florida law authorizes six-person juries for non-capital felonies and the offenses occurred before amendments allowing capital punishment for certain sexual battery crimes, longstanding precedent controlled. The court affirmed the convictions in full.
Speak with a Knowledgeable St. Petersburg Sex Crime Defense Attorney
If you are accused of a sex crime, retaining experienced legal counsel can make a critical difference. The knowledgeable St. Petersburg sex crime defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can advise you of your rights and aid you in seeking the best outcome possible. Contact our St. Petersburg office today at 727-289-0222 or complete our online form to schedule a confidential consultation.