JACQUELINE JOAN STANGHERLIN, PETITIONER,
v.
MELVIN KELLY, SHERIFF OF HERNANDO COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioner Stangherlin sought habeas corpus relief to secure release from custody pending trial on charges of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder. The court denied the writ, finding that testimony from a witness (Modzelewski) regarding petitioner's involvement in concealing the victim's body established sufficient probable cause at an adversary preliminary hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(b), despite the state's reliance on substantial hearsay evidence.
The court held that Modzelewski's testimony—that petitioner helped arrange the victim's removal and concealment, and that the co-defendants stated the death was accidental during what petitioner had set up as an injury—was sufficient competent evidence to establish probable cause that petitioner was an accessory or conspirator. Therefore, the adversary hearing satisfied Rule 3.131(b), and the writ was properly denied.
[1] A defendant arrested for a felony is entitled to an adversary preliminary hearing to determine probable cause if not charged by information or indictment within 21 days o…
[2] At an adversary preliminary hearing, the state must establish probable cause with competent evidence, and all witnesses must be examined in the presence of the defendant…
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“It was therefore necessary that the State establish probable cause that a charged offense was committed and that Stangherlin committed it with competent evidence.”
Establishes the mandatory evidentiary standard for adversary preliminary hearings under Rule 3.131(b).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStangherlin was arrested for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder. She was not charged by information or indictment within…
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 Adversarial Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Stangherlin petitioned this court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure her release from the custody of the sheriff of Hernando County, where she is being held without bail following her arrest for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and first-degree murder. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131(b), when Stangh-erlin was not charged by information or indictment within 21 days from the date of her arrest, she timely moved for an adversary preliminary hearing to determine probable cause of the charges against her. At the hearing, the state’s case consisted primarily of hearsay1 and an affidavit of a former co-defendant who had entered into a plea bargain with the State.2 However, there was some competent evidence to establish a prima facie case against petitioner and, therefore, we deny the writ.
As pointed out in Pierce v. Mims, 418 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), Rule 3.131(b)(3) has changed the procedure and proofs in probable cause hearings for adversary preliminary hearings. It provides:
(3) Witnesses. All witnesses shall be examined in the presence of the defendant and may be cross-examined. (Emphasis added.)
It was therefore necessary that the State establish probable cause that a charged offense was committed and that Stangherlin committed it with competent evidence.
Three witnesses testified for the State. The two police officers, Blackman and Phillips, were primarily able to testify only about what others (not present in court and not one of the co-defendants) told them. Blackman introduced a statement by a co-defendant, Colandro, which (had he testified in court) would have been sufficient to constitute probable cause. The officers’ only non-hearsay testimony established that a human being was dead. Blackman testified he located a body and identified it as Roman Stangherlin from dental records.
The third witness, Modzelewski, testified that he helped the two co-defendants, Jackie Stangherlin and Powlowski, take away a body from Powlowski’s shop and he buried it on his property. He testified that both Powlowski and Jackie told him it had been a Mafia killing, and that Roman’s death had been an accident. Jackie set it up, but Roman was only supposed to be injured. This testimony is sufficient to establish probable cause that the petitioner was an accessory or a conspirator to have her husband physically battered, during the course of which he was killed. We think this was a sufficient showing at the adversary hearing3 pursuant to Rule 3.131(b).
The State argues that a belated indictment and the trial judge’s subsequent denial of bail to the petitioner somehow alter the impact and applicability of the Rule. We disagree. The Rule is very clear. Failure to promptly indict and failure to establish probable cause at an adversary hearing with competent evidence results in the release, pending trial, of a person charged with a felony. See Pierce v. Mims.
The State also argues that Article I, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution and Rule 3.131(b)(5) conflict with each other, and therefore the Rule should not be applicable to persons charged with a capital offense.4 But we are not dealing with the right to bail in this situation. If the Rule applies, petitioner is entitled to release without bail. Further, this provision of the Florida Constitution gives individuals rights to bail under various circumstances. It gives the state no corresponding rights to hold individuals without bail. The State may hold a person without bail unless this power is limited by the constitution, or statute, or rule.
For the reasons stated herein, we deny the writ.
ORFINGER, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . Some of the testimony was double and triple hearsay: what the witness was told by another person who heard it from someone else.
. Defense counsel timely objected to the affidavit and the hearsay evidence.
. State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164, 99 So. 230 (1924).
. [EJvery person charged with a crime ... shall be entitled to release on reasonable bail ... unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.
Art. I, § 14, Fla.Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Merritt, 86 Fla. 164 (Fla. 1923)
- Pierce v. Mims, 418 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)