STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELADIO ALFONSO, ROBERTO ESTEVEZ AND STANTIAGO Y. VALLENA, APPELLEES
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 court held that dismissal is an inappropriate sanction when the state demonstrates an inability to comply with a discovery order, especially when disclosure is made to the extent possible.
The state was ordered to disclose the identity of a confidential informant and an additional witness. The state claimed it possessed very little infor…
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 Willful Refusal To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Appealed is an order dismissing all pending charges against appellees, which was entered as a sanction against the state for a discovery violation.
Appellees initially moved in the trial court for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant (Cl), which motion was granted. Appellee, Estevez, subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the information for failure of the state to make disclosure. After a hearing the trial court again ordered disclosure. When the state failed to comply the motion to dismiss was renewed and ultimately the order appealed from was entered.
At the hearing, the prosecution revealed that the sum total of the state’s information was: the Cl and an additional witness are brothers; the “phonetic” pronunciation of the additional witness’s last name. Neither the state nor the police officers were in actual or constructive possession of any addresses or any additional information.
The issue is whether the ultimate sanction of dismissal was appropriate where the state had no ability to comply with the order. Dismissal of charges and discharge of the defendant is an appropriate sanction for wilful refusal by the state to comply with an order compelling disclosure. See State v. Weinfurt, 409 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Hilliard, 409 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Where the violation is not wilful, however, dismissal is inappropriate. See, e.g., State v. Banks, 418 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). This is particularly apt where no prejudice has been demonstrated.
The state had precious little information to disclose but there was disclosure to the extent possible. Under such circumstances dismissal is unwarranted. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…la.1980) (affirming trial court’s refusal to dismiss case where State failed to produce key witness for defense deposition). Similarly, where the State has disclosed the information to the extent possible, no sanction is warranted. State v. Alfonso, 433 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). . In State v. Alfonso, 433 So. 2d 1357, the court indicated that the defendant’s entitlement to relief turned on the willfulness vel non of the State’s violation: "Dismissal of charges and discharge of the defendant is an appr…1 / 2
-
State v. Monfre, 435 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Reversed on the authority of State v. Alfonso, 433 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). REVERSED and REMANDED. HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents with opinion.…
-
State v. Rodriguez, 483 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…rrect. Among other reasons for our determination are the facts that (a) the state was neither obliged, see State v. Valdes, 443 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), nor had the ability, State v. Alfonso, 433 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), to comply with the request in question so that there was no basis to impose any sanction whatever; and (b) the defense failed utterly to demonstrate that the failure to produce occasioned it any cognizable harm at all, let alone…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Roy Ozzie Banks, 418 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- State v. Hilliard, 409 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- MacKey v. State, 409 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Bean v. State, 409 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)