Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Domestic Violence
A trial court in a Florida domestic violence injunction case weighs the credibility of witnesses and determines who to believe when there is conflicting testimony. When a party appeals an injunction, the appellate court usually does not second-guess the credibility determinations made by the trial court. This was an issue in the case Lau v. Gonzalez, 3D24-1491 (Fla. 3d DCA June 4, 2025).
A permanent domestic violence injunction was entered and the accused appealed. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion and that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the entry of the injunction. The appellate court affirmed, noting there was testimony from the victim alleging incidents of stalking and violence, including the accused’s act of shooting at the victim with a BB gun and threatening to kill her and her kids.
The court held “We conclude [the victim] established competent substantial evidence that she was either a victim of domestic violence or had reasonable cause to believe she was in imminent danger of becoming the victim of domestic violence, as required by section 741.30, Florida Statutes. ‘It was the responsibility of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve the conflicts in the evidence.’ Jeffries v. Jeffries, 133 So. 3d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The fact that there was conflicting testimony from [the accused] that would have supported the denial of the petition is of no significance on appeal. Because the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the injunction, we are required to affirm.”
Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.