Law&Crime Sidebar - Stepmom Reportedly Caught Having Sex with Stepson Gets Major Blow in Case

Episode Date: June 12, 2025

Florida woman Alexis Von Yates, 35, is accused of having sex with her 15-year-old stepson while her husband was at work. The father allegedly walked in to find his wife and son naked on the couch. As Yates’ case heads for trial, a judge made a crucial ruling when it comes to damning statements the teen made to family members and investigators. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber got inside on the court’s reasoning from retired Broward County, Florida judge Elizabeth Scherer.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Want an inventory software that comes fully packed? Check out Odoo for a free 15-day trial at: https://odoo.com/sidebarinventoryHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. A crushing blow for the Florida stepmother allegedly caught having sex with her 15-year-old stepson. A judge has just ruled that the teen statements after the alleged assault can be used against her at trial. And the judge made some pretty interesting points in the order that we're going to break down with Florida judge, Elizabeth Sherer. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We first told you about Alexis von Yates a few weeks ago. She's the 35-year-old whose husband walked in on her, allegedly having sex with her stepson, when she thought he was going to be

at work. Remember this story? The incident reportedly happened last summer when the 15-year-old was apparently spending time with his father in Ocala, Florida over the summer break. He typically lives with his mother in Washington, D.C., and it wasn't until later that he confided to his mom about what allegedly happened. So what does she do? She calls in a tip to Ocala Police. Now, Yates was arrested in November, initially charged with lewd or lascivious battery on a child aged 12 to 16, but prosecutors upgraded that charge to sexual battery on a person 12 to 17 years by a person infamilial authority. So Yates' arrest affidavit included graphic. details that the teen apparently shared with a forensic interviewer, and according to the alleged

victim, his father was working overnight as a lineman, and after his younger half-siblings went to bed, he and Yates stayed up late playing video games, watching movies, and apparently also using Yates marijuana vape pen. According to the arrest affidavit, quote, the suspect and child victim kissed. As the suspect began escalating, the suspect said, ah, man, I wish you were 18 because you're not old enough. Now, despite this alleged statement, the teen victim told the interviewer that he performed oral sex on Yates and this escalated with the two then having sex. The interviewer noted that the way the teen described the acts were consistent with someone who actually experienced all this rather than someone, you know, just telling a story that

they've heard. And he also apparently told the interviewer what allegedly happened in the aftermath. He claims that his father told him to pack his things up, go stay at his grandparents home, and as he was packing, he claims he overheard Yates telling his father that she was sorry and that the child victim looks like his father when he was younger. So just take that for a second, how disturbing those allegations are. But according to the teen, multiple family members discouraged him from talking to the police or disclosing what happened to his mom. His aunt also allegedly told him that Yates had been telling people that he manipulated her into having sex. So when police arrested Yates in November, according to the affidavit, quote, Yates advised

she did not wish to speak with me without a lawyer present, but made several unprovoked statements about believing that since the Department of Children and Families had closed their case, she was in the clear, saying the incident was so accusatory attempting to put blame on the child victim. Yates was released on a $10,000 bond, and since then, there have been several motions that were filed in the case, and attorneys from both sides have conducted depositions, and this includes one that was done by the defense via Zoom with the alleged victim. So a hearing was recently held to determine whether the boy's statements made in the weeks and months after the assault could, in fact, be heard by a jury at Yates' upcoming trial. The judge released

in order this week, allowing that testimony to come in. So to talk about why the court was so concerned about these statements and the reasoning behind the decision, I want to bring in retired Judge Elizabeth Scherer, who, as many of you know, oversaw the case of the Parkland School Shooter in Florida, is now in private practice with Conrad and Sherer. Judge, so good to see you. Thanks so much for coming back here on Sidebar. It's been a minute. It's really, really good to see you. First of all, this is one of the craziest stories and most disturbing stories that we've covered on Sidebar, at least in recent memory. What's just your initial reaction when you hear something like this I mean you don't hear it as often when it involves

a child victim being a male and the the the accuser being a female you more often hear about the accuser being a male and the victim being a female so it's sort of not your ordinary set of circumstances but also the way that it in that it unfolded and and the excuses that she gave like oh, he seduced me and all these kinds of things. We're talking about a 15-year-old child here who was left in your care and custody. As an adult, you're supposed to look after these children. And research shows that actually boys' minds develop even slower than girls' minds. So oftentimes, boys, there's a ton of psychological testing and research that's been done to show that boys are actually less mature than girls' minds.

at this this age of 15 years old and that they don't in fact mature until they're in their mid-20s so this was a child he may be built like a man he may have the stature and the ability to do things like a man but he but he's a child and this is this is a crime and one that everyone should take very seriously hey so we know that you guys are true crime fans but are you also in a business of some kind if so i want to tell you real quick about our sponsor odoo so odour is a power all in one business software that helps you manage everything from sales to accounting and yes inventory their inventory dashboard makes it easy to track receipts delivery orders POS orders and you could see what's waiting late

or back ordered all at a glance you pay for receipts you automate vendor reminders and scheduled deliveries all in just a few clicks plus you get full warehouse management the ability to set picking strategies and real-time stock visibility in the best part Odu's inventory apps syncs seamlessly with your sales and e-commerce apps so everything stays connected do you want an inventory software that comes fully packed? Well, if so, check out Odu for a free 15-day trial at Odu.com slash sidebar inventory. Yeah, we've covered a lot of these cases where, and I'm glad you mentioned that, and we always have Chris Hansen on who says, oh, you know, we cover the cases

where you have a female educator or teacher who has sexual relations or is accused of having sexual relations with a male student. And he's like, you know, everybody thinks, oh, this is a young boy's dream. It's really not. It's incredibly damaging and hurtful and can have long lasting effects, not only for the alleged victim, but the family members as well. The issue here, I understand, I think it has to do with hearsay, right? So talk to us about two things. A, a lot of people just, what is hearsay? Just if you could explain what is hearsay.

And why was the defense so worried about hearsay in your opinion? Okay, so hearsay is the statement that one makes, that's overheard by someone else. So as opposed to me saying, I was on the Jesse Weber show this morning, And I saw him drinking a bottle of whatever he's drinking and he's got books in the background. You say- It's water, by the way, in case anybody thinks I'm drinking alcohol out here. I'm not- This interview is going fine. This interview is going fine.

I don't need a- I don't need a drink just yet. That is all I was saying. I couldn't tell whether it was Perrier or flat water, flat water. Anyway, so as opposed to me saying that, then you saying, Judge Shear was on and she saw me and she said that she saw me, she said that she did this and she said that she did this and she said that she did that, that's hearsay. And in most circumstances, hearsay is not admissible, but there are a few exceptions to that rule.

And one is the child hearsay exception. And that is, it was passed in the 80s by the Florida legislature and most states have similar laws where children, the harm to the child and being brought to a courtroom and having to testify in front of the accuser, the accused about these very sensitive issues. It's said to be that that drama outweighs

the confrontation clause issues that the defendant may have and being able to confront the witness under their constitutional rights. So the legislature has found that the harm to the child outweighs and the need to protect the child outweighs some aspects of the confrontation clause in that this type of hearsay is admissible. So if a child goes to a doctor,

a child goes to their teacher, a child goes to their caregiver and says, this happened to me and in great detail, detail many times the person that the child said those statements to is permitted to testify as opposed to having the child testify because of the harm that it would it could possibly do to the child is it also the rationale that a child of that age is more and and I hope I'm saying it the right way is more likely than not telling the truth is more credible than an adult when you have

hearsay issues or is it purely as you said hey listen we don't want to further damage or traumatize somebody in this situation or is it that you know sometimes we have hearsay exceptions right where their hearsay exceptions would say you know in those certain specific moments there could be a reason to believe that statement more than in other kind of circumstances do you think there's something to this that in those specific instances having a child recounting these alleged episodes to a doctor or a teacher or a parent there is a credibility issue. It makes it more credible.

I think ordinarily, and I hate to have to sort of justify this, but I've seen kids that have been abused for years and those kind of kids are sort of in a different category. But if you take a child who, this is their first instance, being in this situation, I would say it is unlikely that a child is going to make up something is so tremendous. as you can imagine this 15-year-old kid had sex with his stepmother.

That's not just his stepmother. That's his father's wife. So in looking back, this child is traumatized not only by the act itself, but look, he's defied his father, not defied him, but he's, he probably thinks I let him down, I upset him. I broke his trust. I did all of the things that a person would think of if they say had unfair with a married person. So all of those things going through this child's head would be very traumatizing to this child and very unlikely to make up those types of allegations. And one of the most important things to note is in order for this child hearsay to be admissible

is there has to be other corroborating evidence. So it can't just be the child's testimony in and of itself. There has to be other evidence to support the hearsay statements in order for them to be admissible. Let me get into the latest court order and let's dive into it a little bit. So it says at this juncture it is the duty of the court to determine whether the statements of the child are reliable and trustworthy. To do this, the court must find that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provides sufficient safeguards of reliability to be

admissible. And the court laid out 13 standards that are considered when making a decision about child here say statements. I'm going to go over a few of them in more detail first. The court considers the mental and physical age as well as the maturity of the child. The order reads, he appeared to be a particularly intelligent and mature young man. He also appeared to be somewhat worldly and familiar with adult things. Example, he described using a THC vape pen before having sex with the defendant and smoking weed pretty much every day.

He was in Florida. Quote, the court does not find that the child's marijuana use impacted his ability to accurately recall the events that occurred in a material way. His memory of the events, while they may have been better had he not used marijuana, was still highly detailed. Judge, let's stop there. Your reaction to that. This judge is very smart. I'll tell you why. This is an extremely detailed order with findings of fact that are so airtight that it would be very hard for an appellate court to find fault with it. A lot of times judges are, I don't know, overwork, sloppy, whatever you want to call it, and they just slop together some kind of an order that just says, you know, A, B, C, and D, they're all met and therefore the hearsay comes in. This judge went through and made very detailed findings. And the

reason I believe he went over the marijuana use is because, Jesse, I know you know this, but one thing about testifying in court is if you're under the influence of any kind of substance, that can be used against you in cross-examination. So ordinarily, a defense attorney would be able to say, well, isn't it true that you were high when you made these statements, or isn't it true that you were high during this alleged incident? So it could have affected your memory. It could have affected your judgment. It could affect your ability to recall the events, and accurately. So the judge not only is going through making factual findings about this young man's intellect, about his ability to recall events, but he's also saying he's shutting down

the potential argument that the defense, I'm sure, may vary strongly. And one of the reasons that they absolutely need to confront this young man is about his marijuana use and how that could have affected his ability to recall. And the judge is shutting that down in what I would call an airtight order very well written and very teflon i would compare it to teflon when it goes up on appeal which is the best that you can do as a judge because what you don't want to happen is you don't want your decision to be reversed and then god forbid the child has to go through all of this again and the defendant also real quick before we move on to the other factors or considerations even if the statements are allowed in based on the judge's analysis can the defense

Wouldn't be free during a criminal trial in front of a jury raise the issue of marijuana use to talk about the reliability of the statement? Can they still bring it up? Absolutely. Yeah, they think that they would absolutely be able to bring that up. I think that they would be able to bring that up through the forensic examiner who the in Broward County we called SATC, the sexual assault treatment center. They have something to that effect in Ocala. So the person would be a trained professional who would have interviewed him. who would have known to ask open-ended questions as opposed to young man isn't it true that she touched

you first and then and then she did this and then she did that no that's not what you do you say what happened tell me in your own words what happened and after the child finishes the statement you you would say okay tell me what happened next i've had to take uh there's there's another exception in the florida law which says that a child's testimony can be taken in camera a during trial where the judge goes back to a separate room with the child and you're on closed circuit TV so that the lawyers and everyone in the courtroom can watch. And what you do is you bring a list of questions back to the child. But in the room, it's just the judge and the child engaging. So when I did that, so I was sort of in the same position as this examiner,

you have to make sure you want to make the child feel very comfortable. You want to make sure the child is not afraid to tell the truth. You want to make sure you want to make sure the child understands the difference between a truth and the lie. You have to ask them many, many questions to set that foundation so that you're absolutely sure that you can believe what the child is saying

and that the child understands the ramifications of what happens if you tell a lie. And then you ask very open-ended questions and you follow up with those questions, but you get it from the child's point of view and you try your best not to influence the child in any way whatsoever so that you can get the truth absolutely absolutely and look the judge had other considerations here too so the next two considerations are nature and duration of the

abuse and the relationship between the child and the offender so the judge notes that the alleged sex acts only occurred once so it's unlikely that details would you know get mixed up and while he's known yates for a while she's been married to his father for years so he has some familiarity with her usual behavior. The next consideration is whether the child is still emotionally affected by the situation at the time of the report, as well as the time of the incident relative to when the statement was made. The judge writes, in this case, the child did not make statements to CPT, that's child protective services, until four weeks after the incident occurred. With that said, the manner in which this incident is purported to have come to light, example, flagrant delecto

with his stepmother by his father, her husband, after which the child had interaction with his father and other family members about it, during which the child was dissuaded from telling his mother or otherwise disclosing it, and where as a result, the incident was not immediately reported to law enforcement does not cause the passage of time to diminish the reliability of the child's statements.

Judge, do you agree? I absolutely agree, and here's why. For one thing, you would expect a child would be less, to remember after four weeks and after being manipulated by family members not to tell the truth, you would be more inclined to believe that the child is going to downplay the events as opposed to exaggerate the events. So the fact that he's able to recall the events with specificity four weeks later, even after being told by his family members not to disclose what happened for whatever their reasonings were or was. I think that this goes to the credibility of the child.

I think that these two considerations are meant for situations where a child is abused over a period of years. And unfortunately, sometimes children are abused so many times that it's so hard for them to recall. You know, the events kind of all blend together because it happened so frequently. Thank God in this case that this child was only alleged to have been abused one time. And, you know, I say thank God for that because of so many other children who are not as fortunate as this young man, not that he was fortunate, You know what I mean? It could have been much worse. In many cases, it is worse. But I think in this, in this, these two considerations are meant for children who, unfortunately, this happens over a course of years and their memories are sort of fade into each other,

where this child is recalling a specific one-night incident that happened. He's very familiar with his stepmother. It's not like he just met her or had any reason to not like her, had any reason to do harm to her. I think that those are important considerations, and I would agree based on what I see. Now, obviously, Jesse, I wasn't there. I didn't hear the testimony and evidence. I can't judge whether or not it's credible for a fact

because I don't know exactly what was said, and I didn't see and hear those who testified, but from what the judge is saying, I think that this is a sound decision. If I'm the appellate court, I'm going to affirm his decision because I think it's very sound and based on the facts and the law. And you make a great point because there are so many cases that I cover where it's not reported and nobody knows it's going on. And you have conduct taking these allegations as true that can go on for months, that can go on for years.

And that's a real problem. Now, according to the order, this teen was apparently incredibly conflicted when he went back to his mom's house in D.C., almost feeling as if he'd gone through a breakup. He said that he'd been infatuated by his stepmother and was a virgin when they allowed. allegedly had sex. So you think about the impact that these, you know, if these allegations are true, everything we're talking about here. But I want to go through some of the other considerations that were brought up by the judge. There's childlike description of the act. On this one, the judge noted that the teen was 15 at the time it happened and did not describe the acts in a childlike way. So this is kind of important when you think about the impact

on his decision. Next, you have a lack of motive to fabricate. So the judge noted that there was no apparent reason for this boy to make this up. And then making a statement to a number of people, the teen disclosed to multiple family members, including his father, grandfather, cousin, mom, as well as the interviewer. And the next two are mental competency of the child and the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality. And the judge notes that he has no doubt that the alleged victim understands his duty to tell the truth.

judge these are important considerations the amount of people he apparently told the way he's describing these events i see these uh i get it i understand why these are important considerations and uh maybe helped with saying why these statements should come in i mean no think about it no child wants to be walked at 15 years old wants their parents to walk in on them in a sexual act much less but their stepmother this must be horrifying for this young man The way and the manner in which it happened are very realistic and very believable. And again, I think that these considerations go towards, as far as mental capacity, when you're dealing with a six or seven or even five-year-olds, four-year-old,

some of them, they know exactly what happened and they can tell you, you know, what happened and they understand the truth. They understand if they lie. They get in trouble. You know, you have to ask these questions in sort of an elementary type way. But this young man is 15 years old. he certainly should know the difference between the truth and a lie and understand the difference between reality and fantasy. But again, I think the judge is going through every single factor, and he's dotting his eyes and crossing his teas to make sure that this, again, with stands appellate scrutiny, I think he did a good job in doing so.

I think, yes, by the fact that this child was forced to tell, well, his dad, I mean, his dad walked in, and then his stepmother contacts him or he contacts a stepmother the following day. And then he gets sent home to his mother and that night he sent to his grandfather's house. So all these adults know he's telling the same story to all of these adults. And again, it's very important to remember that his testimony has to be corroborated by other competent, substantial evidence, meaning somebody else's testimony, physical evidence, maybe the defendant made statements, even though she invoked her right to counsel. perhaps she made spontaneous statements that corroborated whatever it is there are corrupt there is corroborating testimony to this child hearsay statement text messages right social media post diary entries those are all coming in cases like this now let me go through some of the more considerations and i and i want to get your perspective on a judge so the next consideration is whether the alleged

victim statements are vague or contradictory and we talked about this a little bit earlier that the affidavit was incredibly graphic went into a lot of detail and the judge wrote in this case the child's were particularly detailed, even though the child themselves indicated at one point that he felt he may have been too detailed and that he didn't want to make the interviewer uncomfortable. Now, some of the details provided by the child include situations preceding the incident where defendant may have been testing the waters to see how the child reacted to her making statements that were sexual in nature but were anything but vague. And the next couple of considerations are the possibility of improper influence on the child by participants in a domestic dispute and absence of evidence of code. So this is key because there are a lot of adults in this situation who could potentially have had an effect on the teen and his account. But the judge notes that any allegation of improper influence is purely speculative. He also noted that the interview with the teen was done privately, so it was just him and the interviewer.

So coaching during the interview itself wasn't possible. Doesn't seem like anybody else was in the room. And the final consideration is just any other factor. And the order reads, this court also considered that during the interview, the child did not shy away from making statements that would cast himself in a negative light using marijuana the night of the incident and frequently in the months leading up to it as part of an overall description of the act judge your thoughts on those final considerations you know the coaching saying things that were you know maybe against interest the level of detail what do you think so I think the fact that this young man has the wherewithal to know that not only were these acts wrong, but that he's afraid to offend the interviewer. I'm assuming the interviewer was probably a woman. And he knows enough to say, you know,

men are not supposed to talk about these kind of things. I don't want to offend this lady by using these terms and telling her all of these things because it's not polite. That shows that he has not only a factual understanding, but sort of a moral understanding of what's going on as well. I would say he seems like a well-mannered young man. He, you know, what happened happened. But the fact that he doesn't want to sort of offend the interviewer by telling her,

her, again, her or him, what happened in detail. I think that that goes to the child's credibility. I also think the fact that being influenced, those situations I feel are normally where, let's say mom and dad are getting a divorce, there's been no allegation of sexual abuse ever. And then all of a sudden the child accuses dad of doing something to her while she's in mom's custody, mom's very vindictive, mom's mad about the situation.

Those are situations where you have to worry and you have to wonder, is the child being influenced because of a divorce that's ongoing? But this was just a vacation, a summer vacation, where the child spending a few weeks with dad, mom lives in another state, this happens. And the influence on the child was not to tell, as opposed to to make things up.

So I think that the fact that the child, I think that also goes more to the fact that the child understands his moral and legal obligation to tell the truth because a child that has people and parents and caregivers in a power position over him, telling him not to tell what happened and the fact that he understands

that he has a moral and legal obligation to tell the truth, I think also affirms the judge's findings that he does, in fact, understand the ramifications, that he does in fact understand what was going on, that he did speak in detail, and that it was not influenced by the family members. And just to be clear about something, so this is all about pretrial. This is all about what could come in potentially into evidence. She is innocent until proven guilty. She will have her opportunity to present a defense. Right now, she's scheduled to go on trial in Marion County,

Florida in July. So this is actually two years after her stepson, apparently first disclosed this alleged abuse. If she's convicted of a first-degree felony, she faces a maximum of 30 years in prison, that's our understanding. But look, again, this all goes to the analysis that the judge went through about how the jury may ultimately hear this evidence, but she will have an opportunity or her attorney will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses that are presented against her, try to refute this narrative. So it is a very distressing situation, but an ongoing situation nonetheless. Judge Elizabeth Sherer, thank you so much for taking the time. It was great seeing you. Thank you for having me, Jesse. It was nice to see you, nice to chat with you, and I hope

you have a great day. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.