STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BARRY OBERHOLTZER, 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.
The State's traverse to the motion to dismiss was sufficient to place material facts in controversy, requiring denial of the motion.
Appellee was indicted for first-degree murder and filed a motion to dismiss. The State traversed the motion, but the lower court found the traverse in…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.190(C)(4) Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
Appellee was indicted for the first degree murder of his wife. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him. To this motion, the State traversed. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d). The lower court found that the traverse was insufficient to place material facts in controversy and therefore granted appellee’s motion. The State contends that the lower court’s order was erroneous. We agree and reverse.
The only issue presented for our determination is whether the State’s traverse to appellee’s motion to dismiss was sufficient to require the lower court’s denial of that motion. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(d) provides that such a motion “shall be denied if the State files a traverse which with specificity denies under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss.” We hold that the State’s traverse placed material facts in issue.
It is unnecessary to delve into the circumstances of this case in reaching our conclusion. Once the State files a traverse as required by the aforementioned rule, a trial court has no alternative but to deny a motion to dismiss. The State is under no obligation to present additional facts consistent with guilt. Its only burden is to specifically deny the material facts as set forth in the motion to dismiss. Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
We hold that the depiction of events prior to the crime in question, as contained in the State’s traverse, as well as its denial of appellee’s exculpating account of those events, was sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. See, State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The State’s traverse contains abundant allegations which, if believed by a jury, are consistent with appellee’s guilt. Whether such proof will be sufficient to convict is not an issue properly resolved at this time.
REVERSED.
BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…Criminal Procedure, is understood to state a sworn motion to dismiss under (c)(4) must be denied if the state has filed a sworn traverse which with specificity denies a material fact or facts contained in the motion to dismiss. State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1982). Like summary judgment motions in civil eases, Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions should be granted rarely, for in most cases there are factual disputes that are properly to b…
-
State v. Marlow K. Smulowitz, 482 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…. Moreover, the state’s “traverse/demurrer” failed to deny any material facts in the case and, accordingly, the trial court was free to rule on the merits of the motion based on the material undisputed facts sworn to below. See State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for review denied, 419 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1982); State v. Merritt, 394 So. 2d 531, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1977); see also State v. Holliday,…
-
State v. Gale, 575 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…, rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1273 (Fla.1987). To traverse, the state is under no obligation to present additional facts consistent with guilt, but it must specifically deny the material facts as set forth in the motion to dismiss. State v. Oberholtzer, 411 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1982). Consistent with Oberholtzer, the state did not need to allege any new facts, but merely had to deny specifically the allegations of the motion and ensure that the facts it alleged constituted…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State v. Wright, 386 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)