Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Daniel BROCCA, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-04-16
Citations: 842 So. 2d 291
Docket Number: No. 3D02-2652
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Daniel BROCCA, Respondent.
Judges: Before COPE, GERSTEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 842
Pages: 291–296

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Daniel BROCCA, Respondent.
No. 3D02-2652.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 16, 2003.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Frank J. Ingrassia, Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for Petitioner.
Richard G. Dunberg, South Miami, for Respondent.
Before COPE, GERSTEN, and FLETCHER, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's finding that Section 90.803(24), Florida Statutes (2001), is unconstitutional. We agree with the trial court's reasoning, which mirrored the reasoning in the Florida Supreme Court case of Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950 (Fla.1999).
In concurrence with the Fourth District Court of Appeal's recent opinion in State v. Hosty, 835 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), we certify the following to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance:
IS SECTION 90.803(24), FLORIDA STATUTES (2001), AS APPLIED TO DISABLED ADULTS, FACIALLY VI-OLATIVE OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES UNDER BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONS?
Petition for certiorari denied; question certified.
GERSTEN and FLETCHER, JJ., concur.