Case ID: so2d_549/html/1048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. COWART, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Matthew B. O’BRIEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-297.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Aug. 31, 1989.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1989.
    James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Glen Gifford, Asst. Public Defender, Day-tona Beach, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Colin Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See, Gibson v. State, 533 So.2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Cook v. State, 548 So.2d 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

COWART, J., dissents with opinion.

COWART, Judge,

dissenting.

The trial court permitted the use at trial of a one-way screen to shield a child witness from a view of the defendant. This practice violated the defendant’s constitutional rights under the confrontational clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Coy v. Iowa, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). See the case comment at 40 U.Fla. L.Rev. 1049 (Fla.1988). This was fundamental error requiring no objection at trial and subject to no implied waiver from failure to object. State v. Johnson, 483 So.2d 420 (Fla.1986). Furthermore, defense counsel objected to the screen. This case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial.