State v. Trinidad
The State appealed a trial court order suppressing an audio recording made by a minor victim of her abuser, which the trial court excluded under section 90.403 as more prejudicial than probative. The Fifth DCA reversed, holding the recording was relevant and that its partial inaudibility and lack of explicit confession did not render it unfairly prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The court also rejected the appellee's tipsy-coachman argument that the recording was an illegally intercepted communication, holding the 2015 amendment to section 934.03(2)(k) permits minors to record communications when they reasonably believe the recording will capture evidence of an ongoing or past unlawful sexual act against them.
Key facts
- The State appealed a trial court order suppressing an audio recording made by a minor victim of her abuser, which the trial court had excluded as more prejudicial than probative under section 90.403.
- The minor victim recorded a conversation with her alleged abuser, and the trial court determined the recording was inadmissible because it was partially inaudible, did not contain an explicit confession, and would unfairly prejudice the jury.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion provides useful guidance on applying the 2015 amendment to section 934.03(2)(k), clarifying that minors may lawfully record conversations with alleged abusers without consent when they reasonably believe… — 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.