## Facts

- Rodolfo Contreras was charged with sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation involving his nine-year-old daughter.
- While living with her mother at a domestic-violence shelter, the child was interviewed by a Child Protection Team (CPT) coordinator about alleged abuse.
- The interview was videotaped; the child described Contreras touching and kissing her and touching her genitals with his “private part,” causing pain.
- A police detective monitored the interview from another room and could electronically suggest questions to the CPT coordinator during the interview.
- About six months later, defense counsel conducted a discovery deposition of the child; Contreras was not present, and the deposition generally tracked the videotaped account.
- Roughly ten months after that, new defense counsel conducted a second discovery deposition (after prior counsel destroyed notes); the trial judge observed by closed-circuit television to resolve objections.
- The trial court admitted the videotaped interview at trial; Contreras did not have trial cross-examination of the child, and he was convicted.
- On appeal, the Fourth District reversed, holding the videotaped interview was testimonial under Crawford and that the discovery deposition did not supply a constitutionally sufficient prior opportunity to cross-examine; conflict was certified with a Fifth District decision suggesting otherwise.

## Issues

1. Whether the child’s videotaped CPT interview, conducted with real-time law-enforcement participation, was “testimonial” hearsay subject to the Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether a defense discovery deposition of the child constituted a constitutionally adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination permitting admission of the child’s testimonial hearsay when the child does not testify at trial.
3. Whether Florida’s child-hearsay statute, § 90.803(23), can authorize admission of testimonial child statements without satisfying Crawford’s confrontation requirements.
4. Whether admitting the videotaped interview, if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court exercised certified-conflict jurisdiction and approved in part and quashed in part the Fourth District’s analysis, while leaving the reversal of Contreras’s convictions in place and remanding for further proceedings.
- The Court held the videotaped CPT interview was testimonial because it was taken in an investigative, prosecution-directed setting with police monitoring and input.
- The Court held that, on these facts, the defense’s discovery deposition did not provide the prior opportunity for cross-examination required for admitting testimonial hearsay in lieu of live testimony.
- The Court held that § 90.803(23) cannot override the Confrontation Clause for testimonial statements; statutory findings of reliability and necessity do not substitute for confrontation.
- The Court concluded the Confrontation Clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the videotaped statement was a central and uniquely detailed component of the State’s proof.

## Legal Principles

- Testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
- A child protection interview may be testimonial when conducted in a structured investigative manner with law-enforcement involvement aimed at producing evidence for prosecution.
- A discovery deposition taken for investigative purposes under discovery rules does not necessarily equal adversarial, trial-type cross-examination sufficient to satisfy the Confrontation Clause.
- A child-hearsay statute permitting admission of out-of-court child abuse statements remains subject to constitutional confrontation limits and cannot admit testimonial statements without Crawford compliance.
- Confrontation Clause violations are reviewed for harmless error; reversal is required unless the State proves the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that a videotaped child protection interview conducted with real-time police participation was testimonial and could not be admitted when the child did not testify and the defense’s discovery depositions did not provide an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination; the resulting error was not harmless, so the convictions remained reversed and the case was remanded.


State v. Contreras, 979 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2008)