JAMES R. BUTLER v. STATE OF FLORIDA
254 So. 3d 651
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- James R. Butler was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual battery on a person under 12 based largely on the testimony of the alleged victim and two Williams-rule witnesses.
- Allegations were reported in 1998; Butler absconded and was not arrested until 2009 after being identified by a magazine employer.
- The victim had relocated to Australia in 2007. Before trial the State moved to allow the victim to testify via live satellite transmission; the victim’s affidavit cited visa uncertainty and financial hardship.
- The trial court initially granted the motion, finding important state interests (child-sex-prosecution), delayed prosecution, the victim’s essential testimony, inability to compel her attendance, and that she was beyond subpoena power.
- Shortly before trial the victim obtained a return visa but refused to travel to Florida to testify; the court nevertheless allowed satellite testimony, emphasizing her unwillingness to appear and the State’s inability to compel a foreign resident.
- Butler appealed, arguing the satellite testimony violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights; the Fourth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Butler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether satellite testimony violated Confrontation Clause | Satellite testimony permissible because victim was beyond subpoena power, essential, and State has strong interest prosecuting child sexual offenses | Initially justified by visa issue; after visa obtained, victim’s refusal to travel does not justify continued denial of face-to-face confrontation | Court upheld satellite testimony as a limited exception where witness is beyond subpoena power, essential, and unwilling to travel; prosecution of child sex offenders is an important state interest |
| Whether trial court made required case-specific findings | State: trial court made required findings (victim beyond subpoena, refusal to travel, vital testimony) | Butler: court relied on convenience/expedition and insufficient case-specific findings (per Yates) | Court found trial court properly applied Yates/Craig and made adequate findings focused on inability to compel and importance of the case |
| Whether oath requirement satisfied for a witness abroad | State: victim sworn by Australian notary and extradition treaty covers perjury, making perjury prosecution possible | Butler: perjury prosecution in Australia questionable, so oath ineffective | Court held extradition treaty and U.S./Florida perjury definitions meant perjury was an extraditable offense, satisfying the oath requirement |
| Whether cross-examination and demeanor observation met | State: two-way live transmission allowed full cross-exam and jury could observe witness | Butler: remote testimony impairs demeanor observation and effective confrontation | Court found cross-examination occurred and jury observed witness; requirements satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (face-to-face confrontation is preferred but may yield to necessity where reliability is preserved)
- Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1998) (satellite testimony may be an exception to confrontation if case-specific findings and reliability safeguards exist)
- United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) (trial courts must make case-specific findings; convenience/expedition alone insufficient to override confrontation rights)
- McWatters v. State, 36 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 2010) (standard of review for Confrontation Clause admissibility is de novo)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (governs admission of evidence of other bad acts)