Scott v. State
Scott appealed his convictions for sexual battery and lewd/lascivious molestation of a child, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence supporting most counts consisted only of child hearsay statements (via forensic interview) that the victim could not remember at trial. The First DCA affirmed, holding that under Godbolt v. State, child hearsay admitted under the child-hearsay exception is sufficient to support a conviction so long as the victim does not recant or directly contradict the prior statements at trial—mere failure to remember is not the same as repudiation.
Key facts
- Scott was charged with sexual battery and lewd/lascivious molestation of a child; the evidence supporting most counts consisted of child hearsay statements from a forensic interview that the victim could not recall at trial.
- The trial court denied Scott's motion for judgment of acquittal, and Scott appealed arguing the child hearsay statements alone were insufficient evidence because the victim could not remember the details.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion, particularly Judge Tanenbaum's concurrence, provides a clear and useful framework for practitioners handling child sexual abuse cases where the victim's trial testimony is incomplete or the victim cannot… — 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.