Figueroa Hernandez v. State
The Third DCA affirmed convictions for sexual battery and lewd/lascivious molestation of a minor, addressing for the first time in Florida how Smith v. Arizona (2024) applies to substitute-witness testimony about a Child Protection Team medical examiner's report. The court distinguished Smith on the grounds that the substitute witness offered no independent opinion and the absent examiner made no forensic findings or conclusions, and alternatively held any Confrontation Clause error was not fundamental given cumulative corroborating testimony. The court also rejected a double jeopardy challenge, holding that separate touches of different body parts during a single encounter constitute distinct criminal episodes under Graham and Trappman.
Key facts
- Defendant was convicted of sexual battery and lewd/lascivious molestation of a minor following a trial in which a Child Protection Team substitute witness testified about an absent medical examiner's report.
- The defendant challenged admission of the substitute witness's testimony under the Confrontation Clause, citing Smith v. Arizona (2024), and also challenged multiple molestation counts on double jeopardy grounds.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is one of the first Florida DCA decisions to apply and meaningfully distinguish Smith v. Arizona, providing a template for prosecutors and defense counsel litigating Confrontation Clause challenges… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.