Gil Camacho v. State of Florida, 192 So. 3d 568

Appellant Gil Camacho was charged with attempted second-degree murder and false imprisonment after a victim testified at a pretrial Arthur hearing that Camacho attacked her with a samurai sword, causing severe arm injuries.
At the Arthur hearing, defense counsel called and questioned the victim (the state had not), eliciting admissions about drug use and prior felonies and using leading questions and a hospital photo to challenge her claim that her face had been marked.
The Arthur hearing testimony was adversarial; the court told defense counsel he would be permitted to cross-examine after the state’s examination, and defense counsel conducted extensive, largely unobjected-to questioning.
The victim died after the Arthur hearing but before trial; the State moved to admit her prior Arthur testimony at trial as substantive evidence under Confrontation Clause exceptions for unavailable witnesses.
The trial court admitted the testimony; Camacho was convicted and appealed, arguing the Arthur hearing did not provide a constitutionally adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior Arthur hearing testimony is admissible after the witness dies	State: testimony is admissible because the witness is unavailable and prior testimony was given	Camacho: Arthur hearing did not afford a full, constitutionally adequate opportunity to cross-examine	Admissible — court held the defense’s questioning was the functional equivalent of significant cross-examination
Whether defense’s direct examination at Arthur satisfied Confrontation Clause	State: defense exercised opportunity to test credibility and confront the witness	Camacho: the examination was formally "direct" and would have been more vigorous if counsel anticipated death	Satisfied — form/substance of questioning (leading questions, impeachment, photo confrontation) met the requirement
Effect of the Arthur hearing’s adversarial nature on admissibility	State: Arthur hearing is adversarial and aimed to test proof of guilt	Camacho: Arthur hearing distinct from a preliminary hearing or trial cross-examination	Arthur hearing’s adversarial procedures supported finding of adequate prior opportunity
Reliance on Roberts/Contreras guidance post-Crawford	State: Roberts still instructive about when questioning equals cross-examination	Camacho: Crawford changed confrontation analysis, requiring stricter scrutiny	Court applied Roberts/Contreras standard (equivalent of significant cross-examination) and found compliance

State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980) (establishes Arthur hearing procedure for pretrial release and its adversarial showing requirement)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires prior opportunity for cross-examination of testimonial statements by unavailable witnesses)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (prior-opportunity-to-cross-examine framework; questioning that is the functional equivalent of cross-examination may suffice)
State v. Contreras, 979 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2008) (Roberts remains instructive on what constitutes sufficient prior cross-examination opportunity)
Petit v. State, 92 So. 3d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (review of admissibility of prior hearing testimony under confrontation principles)