THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD JOSEPH, 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 appealed a pre-trial order excluding cocaine evidence that was allegedly thrown from the defendant's vehicle during a high-speed chase. The court reversed the exclusion, holding that the distinctive appearance of the bag and the brief time interval between observation and recovery made the evidence relevant and admissible, with conflicts in officer testimony going to weight rather than admissibility.
The court reversed the exclusion, holding that the bag was relevant evidence because the distinctive appearance of the bag combined with the approximately two-minute interval between observation and recovery made it likely a jury would conclude it was the same bag, and conflicts in officer testimony regarding how and where it was thrown go to the weight and credibility of the evidence, not its admissibility.
[1] A pre-trial order excluding evidence that substantially impairs the state's ability to prosecute its case may be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari.
[2] Evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is relevant.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is relevant, Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1981); Drayton v. State, 292 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), and any fact relevant to the issue is admissible into evidence unless precluded by a specific rule of exclusion.”
Establishes the governing standard for relevance and admissibility of evidence in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Joseph committed a traffic violation observed by two Miami police officers. When the officers activated their patrol car lights, Joseph fled a…
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 Credibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals from a pre-trial order excluding evidence, the effect of which order is to substantially impair the ability of the state to prosecute its case. We treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Richard Joseph, while operating an automobile in daylight, committed a traffic violation which was observed by two City of Miami police officers in a patrol car. The officers turned on the patrol car lights, whereupon Joseph sped away with the patrol car in close pursuit. When Joseph made a left turn at an intersection, the officers observed a yellow plastic bag, distinctively marked with black and red stripes, being thrown from Joseph’s automobile. This information was immediately relayed by radio to Officer Walters who was in another patrol car two blocks from the intersection, and who proceeded at once to the intersection where he retrieved a bag matching the description which he had received. Upon opening the bag, he found it to contain cocaine. He then delivered the bag to one of the patrol officers who identified it as one thrown from Joseph’s car.
At the hearing on the motion to exclude the bag and its contents as evidence, there were some conflicts in the officers’ testimony as to whether the bag had been thrown from the passenger’s side or the driver’s side of the Joseph vehicle, and whether the bag had been found by Officer Walters in the northwest quadrant or in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The court, noting these conflicts, concluded that the State would be unable to prove that Joseph ever had in his possession the particular bag which was found at the intersection, as the facts did not show, to the court’s satisfaction, that the bag recovered at the intersection was the same bag which was thrown from Joseph’s vehicle. The court thereupon ruled that the bag would be irrelevant and immaterial to the charge of possession of cocaine and would be excluded from evidence.
The material fact issue in this case was Joseph’s possession of cocaine. Any evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is relevant, Section 90.401, Florida Statutes (1981); Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), and any fact relevant to the issue is admissible into evidence unless precluded by a specific rule of exclusion. Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223, (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); § 90.402, Fla.Stat. (1981).
The bag, which contained cocaine, was clearly relevant to the issue in this case if it was the same bag which the patrol officers had observed being thrown from Joseph’s vehicle. Given the very distinctive appearance of this bag, and an interval of approximately two minutes between the time the officers saw a bag thrown and the time Officer Walters recovered a bag of matching description at the same intersection, there would seem to be little likelihood that a jury would not be satisfied that it was the same bag, notwithstanding the conflicts in the officers’ testimony as to how the bag was thrown from the car and where in the intersection it was located by Officer Walters. Those conflicts would go to the weight or credibility of the evidence to be resolved by the trier of fact. The order excluding the bag and its contents is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)…al cases which departed from the essential requirements of law. E.g., State v. Edwards, 490 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Maisto, 427 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Busciglio, 426 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Joseph, 419 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Love, 393 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dumas, 363 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1979); State v. Latimore, 284 So. 2d 423…
-
Barnes v. State, 462 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…rgument finding that the evidence which appellant sought to have admitted was not relevant to the material issue, i.e., whether or not appellant was present at the drug transaction between his father and the undercover officer. See: State v. Joseph, 419 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Appellant may be correct in asserting that the proffered evidence was relevant to the issue of John Barnes’s credibility. John Barnes’s credibility was certainly a matter to be considered by the jury. The prosecutor in clos…
-
Pineda v. State, 211 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…to defense counsel’s questions, and were also relevant to defense counsel’s personal attack of Sergeant Utset as an investigator and defense counsel’s characterization of Sergeant Utset’s investigation as “substandard at best.” See State v. Joseph, 419 So. 2d 391, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“Any evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact is relevant, and any fact relevant to the issue is admissible into evidence unless precluded by a specific rule of exclusion.”) (internal citations omitted). To cou…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Masse v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)