Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

969 So. 2d 567

C.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 30, 2007

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2007-11-30

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2008

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a] child offering no testimony in his or her own behalf except his or her own shall be entitled to the concluding argument.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including DB v. State

“the error cannot be considered harmless.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including DB v. State

Relies on I.M. v. State · 648 So. 2d 683 - Wike v. State · EK v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-11-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1C.H. appeals an adjudication of delinquency entered against him for a charge of resisting an officer without violence. C.H. argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal and that the trial court erred in allowing the State to speak first and last in closing argument. We find that there was sufficient evidence to overcome a motion for judgment of acquittal and affirm on this issue. See I.M. v. State, 917 So.2d 927, 929 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). However, we hold that the trial court erred in directing the State to proceed first and last in closing argument, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

¶2Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.110(d) states that “[a] child offering no testimony in his or her own behalf except his or her own shall be entitled to the concluding argument.” Section 918.19, Florida Statutes (2007), provides, however, that the prosecution may speak first and last during closing arguments in a criminal prosecution. In E.K. v. State, 963 So.2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), this court held *568that in juvenile delinquency cases Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.110(d) governs. Further, “because the right to a final closing argument is a vested procedural right, the error cannot be considered harmless.” Id.at 309-310 (citing Wike v. State, 648 So.2d 683, 686 (Fla.1994); Freeman v. State, 846 So.2d 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)).

¶3Here, C.H. offered only his own testimony as evidence at trial and, thus, was entitled to the concluding argument under rule 8.110(d). Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶4AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
/969/so2d/567 · .json · Public domain