Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT A.S., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-460 April 27, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Christopher M. Labruzzo, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. A.S. appeals the order withholding an adjudication of delinquency and finding that he committed the delinquent act of fleeing or eluding. He argues that the trial court erred by holding his adjudicatory hearing via Zoom, a virtual teleconferencing platform, without a case-specific finding of necessity. Based on our recent holding in T.H. v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D681 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar. 18, 2022), we agree and reverse. In T.H., we held that a trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing and make a case-specific finding of necessity before it limits a juvenile's constitutional right to confrontation. See id. at D682- 683 (explaining that the right to confront witnesses in person is afforded to a child in a juvenile proceeding through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that precedent reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation, which can only be dispensed with following a case-specific finding of necessity (first citing McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 541 (1971); and then citing Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 855 (1990))). Because the adjudicatory hearing in this case proceeded via Zoom without a case-specific finding of necessity,1 we reverse the order withholding adjudication and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing. See id. at D683. The adjudicatory hearing may be 1 As in T.H., the court conducted the adjudicatory hearing in this case remotely although in-person criminal jury trials had resumed notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic. See T.H., 47 Fla. L. Weekly at D683. 2 conducted remotely only if the trial court holds an evidentiary hearing on A.S.'s objection and makes a case-specific finding of necessity. See id. At that hearing, the burden of overcoming A.S.'s constitutional preference for face-to-face confrontation rests with the State. See id. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. KELLY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 3