STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT A. EDWARDS, 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.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by prohibiting the use of words like 'prison' and 'prisoner' at trial.
[1] Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to review pretrial evidentiary rulings that are clearly erroneous and for which no adequate remedy is available upon appeal of the fi…
[2] The fact and place of a crime's perpetration are ingredients of the offense and are germane to the proof required for conviction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, a prisoner indicted for murder, filed a motion in limine to prohibit the State from using words like 'prison', 'prisoner', 'penitentiar…
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 Motion In Limine cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This cause came before the court on a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the State to quash the order of the trial court granting, in part, defendant’s motion in limine.
Defendant, a prisoner at Sumter Correctional Institution, was indicted for the first degree murder of another prisoner. Most of the witnesses who were to testify at trial were either inmates or guards at the Sumter Correctional Institution. Pursuant to a motion in limine filed by the defendant, the trial court entered an order prohibiting the State or its witnesses from using the words “prison”, “prisoner”, “penitentiary”, or “guard” at any stage of the trial. The State argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in prohibiting the use of the specified words. We agree, and grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
As stated in Tompkins v. State, 386 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA) rev. den., 392 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1980), a case where defendant prisoner was charged with the sexual battery of another prisoner, “[T]he fact and place of perpetration are ingredients of a crime and are germane to proof required for conviction_ [References to this defendant’s conviction and inmate status were inevitable due to the fact that the crime was committed in a prison....” Id. at 599.
Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to review pretrial evidentiary rulings which are clearly erroneous where no remedy is available upon appeal of the final disposition. See e.g. State v. Busciglio, 426 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
The order of the trial court prohibiting the use of the words “prison”, “prisoner”, “penitentiary,” or “guards” is a departure from the essential requirements of law and any possible prejudice to the defendant by references to his status as a prisoner can be cured by an appropriate instruction to the jury.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and that portion of the trial court’s order in dispute is quashed.
UPCHURCH and COWART, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)…w. 409 So. 2d at 511. In many other cases the district courts of appeal have granted common law certiorari to quash nonappealable interlocutory orders in criminal 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. Lov…
-
State v. Katiba, 502 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…a.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(2). Accordingly, we treat the petition as an untimely appeal of a pretrial order and dismiss it. DAUKSCH J., concurs. SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion. . This court recently followed that doctrine in State v. Edwards, 490 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), which is in direct conflict with McIntosh and Jones. . The United States Supreme Court cases cited in Judge Sharp’s footnote 3 relating to a prisoner's expectations of privacy in his cell are irrelevant to electronic intercepti…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Horvatch, 413 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Doyall Tompkins v. State, 386 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Busciglio, 426 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)