## Facts

- Florentino Martinez was charged with attempted manslaughter with a firearm.
- The victim, Timothy Bedwell, was expected to be the State’s first witness at trial.
- Before opening statements, Martinez objected to Bedwell remaining in the courtroom during openings.
- The defense argued that counsel’s description of Martinez’s version of events in opening statements might influence Bedwell’s later testimony.
- The trial court denied the request, concluding the concern was not enough to overcome the victim’s Florida constitutional right to be present in the courtroom.
- Bedwell stayed for opening statements, later testified, and Martinez was convicted.
- Martinez appealed, claiming the trial court committed reversible error by permitting Bedwell to remain during opening statements.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court commit reversible error by allowing the victim—who would testify first—to remain in the courtroom during opening statements over the defendant’s objection that the victim might shape testimony after hearing the defense’s theory?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim to remain during opening statements.
- The defendant’s claim that the victim might tailor testimony was speculative and did not show a concrete risk to the fairness of the trial sufficient to require exclusion of the victim.

## Legal Principles

- Florida’s constitution grants crime victims a right to be present at criminal proceedings.
- A victim’s right to attend is not absolute; if a conflict arises, the victim’s right must give way when necessary to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial (citing the framework recognized in Gore v. State).
- Trial courts have broad discretion to manage the courtroom and decide whether any witness, including a victim-witness, should be excluded from any part of the proceedings.
- To justify excluding a victim-witness despite the constitutional presence right, the defendant must make a specific, case-based showing that the victim’s attendance is likely to prejudice the defendant’s fair-trial rights; generalized concerns about possible testimony-shaping are not enough.
- Opening statements are not evidence; the fact that a witness hears counsel’s outline of expected proof, without more, generally does not establish prejudice requiring exclusion.

## Conclusion

Martinez’s conviction was affirmed because the trial court reasonably concluded that the victim’s constitutional right to attend opening statements was not overcome by a generalized fear that the victim might adjust testimony after hearing the defense’s account, and Martinez did not show specific prejudice or an unfair-trial risk that required excluding the victim-witness.


Martinez v. State, 664 So. 2d 1034 (1996)