Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence
In order to obtain an injunction for protection against sexual violence in Florida, a petitioner must prove: “(1) that the petitioner is the victim of sexual violence, (2) that the sexual violence was reported to law enforcement, and (3) that the petitioner 'is cooperating in any criminal proceeding against the respondent, regardless of whether criminal charges based on the sexual violence have been filed, reduced, or dismissed by the state attorney.’ § 784.046(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020).” See Rollins v. Rollins, 5D21-2301 (Fla. 5th DCA March 18, 2022).
In the Rollins case, the petitioner filed a petition for protection against sexual violence. The court found both parties to be credible after a hearing and denied the petition, holding the petitioner had not met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that sexual violence occurred. The petitioner appealed, arguing that because the court found her testimony to be credible, the petition should have been granted.
The appellate court disagreed. It noted “[The petitioner’s] argument conflates the burden of evidentiary proof in the trial court proceedings with the legal requirement that the trial court’s findings of fact shall be sustained by an appellate court if supported by competent, substantial evidence. These are two distinct concepts. [. . .] A ‘burden of proof’ is ‘[a] party’s duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge . . . .’ Burden of proof, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). In a civil case such as this one, the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. [. . .] This means that in order for the plaintiff/petitioner to prevail at an evidentiary hearing or trial, the evidence supporting the plaintiff/petitioner’s position must outweigh, i.e., be more convincing, than that of the defendant/respondent.”
The court went on to distinguish “A party’s burden of proof in the trial court is not to be confused with the standard by which an appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision based on a finding of fact. The standard of review on appeal requires the appellate court to determine whether the trial court’s decision was supported by competent, substantial evidence, regardless of whether the party’s burden of proof in the trial court was preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. Stated another way, and apropos here, the findings of the trial court in either granting or denying an injunction must be supported by competent, substantial evidence to be affirmed.”
The court went on to conclude that because the trial court was faced with equally credible, but conflicting testimony, it was correct to deny the petition in the absence of any other evidence that might substantiate one party’s testimony over the other. The trial court’s denial of the petition was therefore upheld.
Schedule a meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law might apply to the facts of your case.