In the Interest of F. F.

The trial court abused its discretion in sequestering the 14-year-old juvenile's parents during his delinquency trial, since parents are parties to juvenile proceedings and may not be sequestered, even if they are also witnesses in the case.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Both F. F., a fourteen-year-old juvenile, and F. F.’s mother appeal from the trial court’s order adjudicating F. F. delinquent for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute aggravated sexual battery.1 Both appeals allege the evidence was insufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency, the trial court erred in not having F. F.’s parents in the courtroom with him during trial, and F. F. received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In the interest of economy, we have consolidated the appeals. While we find that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency, we reverse the case because the trial court manifestly abused its discretion in sequestering F. F.’s parents during the trial. 1. F. F. and his mother argue that the juvenile court erred in adjudicating him delinquent because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the act of aggravated sexual battery.2 They claim that the only evidence against F. F. consisted of child hearsay and the testimony of several witnesses that contradicted the six-year-old victim’s allegations that F. F. placed a twig in her vagina. Because the child hearsay testimony was admissible and the juvenile court was charged with resolving conflicts in the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, this contention is without merit.3

A person commits the offense of aggravated sexual battery when he or she intentionally penetrates with a foreign object the sexual organ or anus of another without the consent of that person.4 The term “foreign object” means that the penetration occurs with any article or instrument other than the sexual organ of the accused.5 Penetration may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.6 Additionally, a child under 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual acts. Here, the victim’s statements to the DFCS worker and forensic interviewer were sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that F. F. committed the act of aggravated sexual battery.7

In the Interest of F. F.

The trial court abused its discretion in sequestering the 14-year-old juvenile's parents during his delinquency trial, since parents are parties to juvenile proceedings and may not be sequestered, even if they are also witnesses in the case.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report