OLIVER NASH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Nash appealed his conviction for dealing in stolen property, challenging both the trial court's denial of his motion to disqualify the State Attorney's office and the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction. The court affirmed, holding that disqualification of an individual prosecutor does not require disqualification of the entire office, and that competent substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.
The court affirmed on both grounds. First, disqualification of an individual attorney in the State Attorney's office does not necessarily require disqualification of the entire office. Second, the jury's verdict was supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] Disqualification of an individual attorney within a state attorney's office does not automatically necessitate disqualification of the entire prosecutorial office.
[2] A defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from remarks made by a state attorney to warrant disqualification of the prosecutorial office.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the fact that an individual attorney who works in the office of the state attorney may be disqualified from acting in a particular case will not necessarily require disqualification of the entire prosecutorial office”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that disqualification of one prosecutor does not automatically disqualify the entire office.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNash was convicted of dealing in stolen property. He bought and sold seafood that was allegedly stolen. Nash claimed the State Attorney's conduct was …
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 Prejudicial Remarks cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Nash appeals his conviction for dealing in stolen property, contending first that the trial court erred in concluding it was without authority to declare the office of the State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida disqualified to prosecute his case, and, second, that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the jury’s implicit determination that he knew or should have known that certain seafood he bought and sold had been stolen. We affirm.
At the time the appeal was taken in this case, there was case law supporting Nash’s assertion that the circuit courts of this state did have authority to disqualify the office of the state attorney from handling particular prosecutions because of the actions of the state attorney or any of his assistants. Fitzpatrick v. Smith, 432 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). However, in State v. Fitzpatrick, 464 So. 2d 1185 (Fla.1985), our Supreme Court reversed the Fifth District Court of Appeal and held that the fact that an individual attorney who works in the office of the state attorney may be disqualified from acting in a particular case will not necessarily require disqualification of the entire prosecutorial office. In this case, Nash’s prosecution was handled in its entirety by an assistant state attorney whose conduct has not been called into question, and not by the state attorney whose conduct Nash characterizes as unprofessional and prejudicial. In any event, we would affirm as to this issue because Nash failed to move for a change of venue and failed to demonstrate that the publication of certain intemperate and derogatory remarks made about him by the state attorney prejudiced him in any manner. We find no merit to the contention that the jury’s verdict was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Honorable William Meggs v. The Honorable Charles McCLURE, 538 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…lifying interest. Meggs was not the actual prosecutor in the case, and the participation of the assistant state attorney actually responsible for the prosecution has not been shown to have caused any prejudice to Wolfe whatsoever. In Nash v. State, 466 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), this court made reference to the rule that misconduct which might justify disqualification of the state attorney need not require disqualification of one of his assistants, citing State v. Fitzpatrick, 464 So. 2d 1185 (Fla.1985)…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fitzpatrick, 464 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1985)
- Fitzpatrick v. Honorable C. McFerrin Smith, 432 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)