Salgado-Mantilla v. State
Salgado-Mantilla argued it was fundamental error for the trial judge to leave the courtroom while the jury re-watched a child victim's forensic interview video during deliberations, because the record did not show he personally knew he had a right to the judge's presence. The Third DCA held that although the right to the judge's presence is fundamental and can only be waived by the defendant himself, the record here showed both defense counsel's consent and the defendant's own on-record agreement, making the question of whether his waiver was 'knowing' a factual issue that cannot be resolved on direct appeal absent evidence of his subjective lack of knowledge. The court affirmed but did so without prejudice to Salgado-Mantilla raising the factual question of his knowledge in a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion.
Key facts
- Defendant Salgado-Mantilla was convicted after trial; during jury deliberations, the trial judge left the courtroom while the jury re-watched a child victim's forensic interview video.
- Salgado-Mantilla appealed, arguing it was fundamental error for the judge to be absent during the video playback because the record did not affirmatively show he knew he had a right to the judge's presence, despite his on-record agreement to the judge's absence.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion gives practitioners a roadmap for handling ambiguous on-the-record waivers of a defendant's fundamental right to the judge's presence during jury readbacks or video replays: absent proffered evidence of the… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
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.