This paper examines key procedural and evidentiary questions arising in a Florida child abuse case involving a minor named Susan. Drawing on the Florida Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the paper addresses four issues: the admissibility of Susan's statements as excited utterances under Florida Statute 90.802(2), the permissible scope of testimony by treating therapists and physicians, the admissibility of the mother's testimony and the limits of attorney-client privilege under Florida Statute 90.502, and the court's authority to order a psychological evaluation of the child under Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.250 and Section 39.201.
Some of the statements made by Susan would be admissible as evidence in court pursuant to the Florida Rules of Evidence. Specifically, the statement she made to the attending nurse at the emergency room would likely be admissible as an excited utterance — a statement made under the stress of a startling event and before the person has had time to reflect or fabricate. The legal justification for admitting an excited utterance is that it is considered inherently reliable due to the spontaneous and sincere nature of the statement (Excited Utterance, 90.802(2)).
Susan's therapist or treating physician could be called to testify in this case. The permissible scope of their testimony would likely be limited to their observations and interactions with Susan, including any statements she made to them about the alleged abuse. However, they would likely be prohibited from offering any opinion or conclusion as to whether or not the abuse actually occurred.
Susan's mother could be called to testify against her former husband. However, any statements made by the former husband to his lawyer would likely be protected by attorney-client privilege and would not be admissible in court unless the privilege is waived by the former husband (Lawyer-Client Privilege, 90.502). These statements would also constitute hearsay within the meaning of the Florida Rules of Evidence, as they are being offered for their truth but are not being made under oath by the person who made them.
"Court authority to order child psychological evaluation"
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.