Articles Posted in Sex with Minor

In many instances where a defendant is charged with a sex crime, the only evidence of the crime is the testimony of the alleged victim. In Clearwater sex crime cases where there is no other corroborating evidence of the alleged crime if the victim recants his or her prior testimony at trial, it is unlikely the State will be able to present evidence to support a conviction.

This was recently illustrated in a case decided by a Florida court of appeals, in which the defendant’s convictions for two sex crimes were overturned, due to the alleged victim’s repudiation of her prior statement at trial. If you live in Clearwater and are charged with a sex crime, you should retain a seasoned Clearwater sex crimes defense attorney as soon as possible, to analyze what defenses are available to the charges you face.

Alleged Sexual Battery

Reportedly, the defendant sexually battered his girlfriend’s 16-year-old mentally disabled sister. The victim’s mother took her to a hospital, where she gave a detailed account of the defendant’s actions. The State charged the defendant with three separate counts of sexual battery, for three acts of oral, penile, and digital penetration, based upon the victim’s account.

Continue reading

In a case heard by the Florida First District Court of Appeal, a man challenged his conviction for capital sexual battery and lewd molestation. He argued that the convictions should be thrown out because the trial court improperly prevented evidence from being admitted. All convictions must be supported by evidence. However, there are strict rules about what can and cannot be admitted into evidence in a criminal trial. If the evidence that supported the conviction is thrown out, the conviction may also be overturned if there is not enough remaining evidence to sustain it. That’s why it’s common for Florida sex crimes defense attorneys to challenge the evidence admitted into court as they did here.

Abuse of Discretion Standard

The appeals court hears cases after they have already been decided by the trial court. In deciding whether or not to allow the decision of the trial court to stand, the appeals courts use different standards depending on the issue. For example, some elements are looked at “de novo,” which means the appeals court does not have to give any deference to the findings of the lower court and can instead make their own decision as if they are looking at it for the first time.

In this case, the appeals court used an abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the evidence should have been admitted or not. In other words, they need to allow the decision of the lower court to stand unless they find that the decision was not permissible under the law. Continue reading