State v. Tumlinson
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17231
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Tumlinson was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under 12 after roommates found his journals describing sexual contact with a 13–18‑month‑old child (J.T.).
- Tumlinson gave recorded oral and written statements admitting authorship of the journals and acknowledging touching the child over her diaper; he also denied sexual contact beyond what the journal described.
- The State moved to admit Tumlinson’s journal, written, and recorded statements under Fla. Stat. § 92.565 (statute allowing admission of confessions in certain sexual‑abuse cases when victim incapacity prevents proving elements). The court held evidentiary hearings on trustworthiness under the statute.
- The State argued it could not independently prove elements of the crime because the victim was nonverbal due to age, invoking § 92.565’s corpus‑delicti exception; it sought to admit Tumlinson’s statements as trustworthy corroborated evidence.
- The trial court found some facts (adult defendant, victim under 12, Tumlinson visited the home, once left with the child) but expressly found no testimony that Tumlinson was ever alone with the child and concluded the State failed to prove the trustworthiness of the statements by a preponderance.
- The appellate majority affirmed, applying this court’s Geiger precedent: the State presented no corroborating evidence independent of Tumlinson’s own statements sufficient to establish trustworthiness under § 92.565.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tumlinson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied admission of Tumlinson’s journal, written, and recorded statements under § 92.565 | Statements admissible without proving corpus delicti if court finds victim incapacity and statements are trustworthy; corroboration may include hearsay and the statements themselves | Statement content unreliable or insufficiently corroborated; court should exclude if trustworthiness not shown | Affirmed: trial court correctly found State failed to prove trustworthiness by preponderance under § 92.565 |
| What constitutes sufficient corroborating evidence to satisfy § 92.565(3) | Presence/opportunity, consistency, voluntary demeanor, and lack of mental impairment support trustworthiness | Those factors largely concern the statements themselves and cannot substitute for independent corroboration | Held that corroboration cannot rely exclusively on the defendant’s statements; some evidence tending to establish the type of harm is required (Geiger applied) |
| Whether corpus delicti must be proved despite § 92.565 | § 92.565 eliminates corpus delicti as prerequisite when statutory conditions met | Trial court treated corpus delicti as required | Majority: § 92.565 applies; but State still failed statutory trustworthiness burden—no independent corroboration beyond the confessions |
| Scope of trial court’s fact‑finding duty under § 92.565(4) | Court must make specific, on‑record findings about trustworthiness based on corroborating evidence | Court must not import corpus delicti rule | Held: trial court made required findings and permissibly concluded the State failed to meet burden; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Geiger v. State, 907 So.2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (requires corroborating evidence beyond confessions to establish trustworthiness under § 92.565)
- Hernandez v. State, 946 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (‘‘a confession cannot corroborate itself’’; court cannot rely exclusively on defendant’s statements)
- Bradley v. State, 918 So.2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (explains § 92.565 elements and that the statute replaces corpus‑delicti with a trustworthiness inquiry)
- Dionne v. State, 814 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (statute eliminates corpus‑delicti as predicate when victim disability prevents proof)
- State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1976) (traditional corpus‑delicti rule: confession insufficient without independent evidence)
- Ramirez v. State, 133 So.3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (discusses corpus‑delicti and need for independent corroboration when confession is relied upon)
- Ruiz v. State, 388 So.2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (articulates corpus‑delicti principle requiring independent evidence apart from confession)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (federal trustworthiness doctrine: convictions should rest on more than uncorroborated confessions)