Glendening v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that an opinion as to whether the child was sexually abused was within the province of an expert in the area of interviewing children regarding the subject of child abuse
• determining that section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1985), concerning out-of-court statements, was procedural for the purposes of ex post facto analysis
• determining that section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1985), concerning out-of-court statements, was procedural for the purposes of ex post facto analysis
• stating that admission of exculpatory testimony “unquestionably did not contribute to the conviction and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”
• finding no violation of guarantee of right to confrontation in applying section 92.53, which permits videotaping of child's testimony, for purposes of admitting out-of-court statements of child victim of sexual abuse pursuant to hearsay exception
• no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that an opinion was within the province of the expert witness as to whether the minor child had been the victim of sexual battery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).