STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC G. LANGER, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion In Limine cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
The State of Florida seeks to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this district court of appeal to review a county court order denying a motion in limine made by the State to exclude from evidence at trial the opinion of a certain defense expert witness which order was certified by the county court to be of great public importance.
The testimony of a defense expert witness is not a “confession” nor an “admission” nor is it “evidence obtained by search and seizure.” Therefore a non-final order denying a state’s motion in limine to exclude the opinion testimony of a proposed defense expert witness is not appeal-able by the State under Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) nor any other provision of that rule. The jurisdiction of district courts of appeal to discretionarily review by appeal non-final orders of the county court is limited by Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B) to orders otherwise appealable to the circuit court under Rule 9.140(c). Because the order in question is not appealable to the circuit court under rule 9.140(c) this court does not have jurisdiction to review that order under Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Richardson, 621 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…admissions of Richardson made to his father (item 3) and to the police (item 6). See State v. Brea, 530 So. 2d 924 (Fla.1988); State v. Palmore, 495 So. 2d 1170 (Fla.1986). See also State v. Hale, 505 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA1987); State v. Langer, 490 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA1986); State v. Evans, 462 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA1985). We also conclude that, because the murder of Floyd (item 2) is intertwined with the admission of Richardson to his father that he needed money to leave town because he had killed…
-
State v. Cesareo Brea, 525 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…which could as well have been made during the trial itself — when it would have con-cededly been entirely unreviewable. The order may not therefore be considered such an admission as a matter of the law of appellate review. See also State v. Langer, 490 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). In accordance with our repeated rulings that such orders may likewise not be considered on certiorari, State v. Arriagada, 508 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Cecil, 508 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), we dismiss the ap…