THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT ASHLEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida's appellate court reversed the dismissal of a criminal information, holding that the state cannot be compelled by court order to produce out-of-state witnesses for defendant's discovery depositions when those witnesses are listed as potential state witnesses.
The state may not be compelled by court order to produce out-of-state witnesses for the defendant's discovery deposition when such witnesses are listed by the state as potential witnesses in a criminal case, and dismissal of a criminal case for failure to produce such witnesses is reversible error.
[1] A state cannot be compelled by court order to produce out-of-state witnesses for a defendant's discovery deposition when those witnesses are listed as potential state wit…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state listed certain out-of-state witnesses as potential witnesses in a criminal case against Robert Ashley. The trial court ordered the state to …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal, we are asked to review a trial court order dismissing an information in a criminal case for failure of the state to produce, pursuant to court order, certain out-of-state witnesses for the defendant for the purpose of taking their discovery deposition after said witnesses had been listed by the state as potential state witnesses in the case. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. § 924.07(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).
We reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to reinstate the information in this cause upon a holding that: (1) the state may not be compelled by court order to produce out-of-state witnesses for the defendant to take their discovery deposition when such witnesses are listed by the state as potential witnesses in a criminal case; (2) it is reversible error for a trial court to dismiss a criminal case for failure of the state to produce such witnesses pursuant to court order; and (3) no showing was made in this case that the state intentionally or negligently suppressed any evidence in this cause, or, indeed, that the evidence claimed to be suppressed was in any way favorable to the defendant. State ex rel. Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); see State v. Herrera, 365 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1978).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…g, arguen-do, that defendants who asserted an entrapment defense made a sufficient showing to warrant deposing confidential informants, the informants’ refusal to testify on self-incrimination grounds was not a discovery violation); State v. Ashley, 393 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (dismissal improper where State fails to produce out-of-state witness for deposition, since State under no obligation to do so); State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (exclusion of testimony of certain witnesses and dis…
-
State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…e action taken below was unjustified. The state is not ordinarily obliged, at pain of dismissal, even to produce prosecution, much less defense, witnesses for deposition or trial. State v. Merritt, 394 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Ashley, 393 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (1981); Knight v. State, 373 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1980); State v. Banks, 349 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State ex rel. Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State v.…
-
State v. D. A. J., 416 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…*843] reverse the trial court order under review [which excluded the state’s witnesses from testifying at trial and dismissed the juvenile delinquency petition herein] and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. State v. Ashley, 393 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Banks, 349 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State ex rel Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State v. Velasquez, 305 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1974). Reversed an…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Eutansio Antolin Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. The Honorable N. Joseph Durant, Jr., 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- State v. Herrera, 365 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)