The Florida Supreme Court recently amended Rule 3.220 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, fundamentally changing how criminal defense attorneys must approach discovery depositions of child victims of sexual offense. These amendments, effective as of October 1, 2025, create new procedural hurdles that defense counsel must navigate to avoid waiving critical discovery rights while protecting their clients' constitutional guarantees. The changes matter because depositions remain one of the most powerful discovery tools available to Florida criminal defense attorneys. But when your client faces charges involving alleged sexual offenses against minors, you now face a more complex procedural landscape that requires strategic planning well before you notice any deposition.
Background: Statute Drives Rule Change
The rule amendments didn't emerge from a vacuum. They respond to changes in Florida Statute § 92.55 that took effect July 1, 2023. The legislature imposed specific limitations on discovery depositions of sexual offense victims under 16 years old, recognizing concerns about potential trauma to child witnesses while attempting to preserve defendants' confrontation rights.
The Florida Supreme Court's Criminal Procedure Rules Committee proposed amendments to align the rules with the new statutory requirements. After publishing the proposal for comment and receiving input from criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, and other stakeholders, the court adopted the final amendments this fall.
What the Amendments Change
The amendments make one particularly significant change to the rules governing depositions. The new subdivision (h)(10) establishes a mandatory hearing process before defense counsel can depose a sexual offense victim under 16. Under this subdivision, if the defense seeks to depose such a victim, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the deposition should proceed. At this hearing, the burden falls on the party seeking the deposition—typically the defense—to demonstrate that the deposition should be allowed under the standards set forth in § 92.55(6)(a) and (b).
The statute itself requires the court to consider several factors: whether the deposition is necessary for a fair determination of the case, whether the information sought can be obtained through less intrusive means, and whether the child has already testified at a previous proceeding. The court must also consider the child's age, maturity, and psychological condition, along with the nature and degree of anticipated trauma from the deposition.
It is noteworthy that the hearing requirement is limited to child sexual abuse victims. Allegations of physical abuse are not impacted by this change and defense counsel can schedule the deposition of the alleged child victim without scheduling a hearing. Similarly, child witnesses, who are not listed victims, are not impacted by this amendment.
Practical Implications
These amendments fundamentally change the calculus for defense attorneys handling cases involving alleged sexual offenses against minors.
Unlike the previous practice where you could notice a deposition and proceed unless the State objected, you now must affirmatively convince the court that the deposition should occur at all. This means you need to develop a detailed showing about why the deposition is necessary, what specific information you seek, and why alternative discovery methods won't suffice.
Generic arguments are not likely to carry the day. You'll need to articulate precisely what areas of testimony you need to explore and explain why other forms of discovery are not sufficient. If the alleged victim has given multiple prior inconsistent statements, for example, you might argue that only live questioning can effectively explore the inconsistencies and test credibility. If your theory of the case depends on demonstrating that the child's memory has been influenced by suggestive interviewing techniques, you'll need to explain why you must question the child about the interview process.
Among other things, defense counsel should look for opportunities in the deposition of other witnesses to develop evidence that will help support the required showing to obtain a favorable ruling.
Conclusion
Florida's amended discovery rules represent a significant shift in how criminal defense attorneys must approach cases involving minor alleged victims of sexual offenses. The new hearing requirement in Rule 3.220(h)(10) means depositions no longer happen automatically—you must persuade the court they're necessary.
Success under these amendments requires early strategic planning, detailed factual development about why the deposition is essential to your defense, and careful documentation of your decision-making process. While the amendments create new obstacles, they don't eliminate your ability to conduct critical pretrial discovery. They just require more work to get there.
Start planning your approach to these depositions early, develop specific justifications tied to your theory of the case, and be prepared to make detailed records at the required hearings. Your client's ability to mount an effective defense may depend on how well you navigate this new procedural landscape.
