STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN HENRY BOOM, 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's dismissal of an information charging Boom with assisting another to commit a crime. The appellate court reverses, holding that the state's sworn traverse presenting additional facts was sufficient to establish a prima facie case and require denial of the motion to dismiss.
The trial court must deny a motion to dismiss when the state files a sworn traverse presenting additional facts, as long as the undisputed facts permit the conclusion that the defendant could be found guilty. All inferences must be resolved against the defendant and in favor of the state at the motion to dismiss stage.
[1] A trial court must deny a motion to dismiss filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) when the state files a traverse that creates a factual dispute.
[2] A traverse filed by the state in response to a motion to dismiss must be sufficiently specific to raise a factual dispute.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 the state filed a sworn traverse which disputed the material facts was enough to require the trial court to deny appellee's motion to dismiss.”
Establishes the core holding that a sworn traverse disputing facts requires denial of a motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state filed a sworn traverse in response to Boom's motion to dismiss an information. The traverse presented additional facts upon which the state …
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 Dismissal Of Information cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The state appeals a trial court order which granted appellee’s motion to dismiss an information. We reverse.
The fact that the state filed a sworn traverse which disputed the material facts was enough to require the trial court to deny appellee’s motion to dismiss. State v. Dixon, 450 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State v. Cook, 354 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 359 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 1978); State v. Wood, 299 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In this case, the state’s sworn traverse presented additional facts upon which it hoped to prove that appellee intended to assist another person to commit a crime. Although appellee argues that the state’s additional factual allegations did not create any factual dispute, as long as the undisputed facts “permit the conclusion that the defendant could be found guilty, the motion must be denied.” State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (emphasis added.) It is not the trial court’s function to determine whether the state’s evidence excluded all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. State v. Fry, 422 So. 2d 78, 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). As long as the state shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting it. State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). All inferences must be resolved against the defendant and in favor of the state. Id. at 215; Vanhoosen v. State, 469 So. 2d 230, 231-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The inferences which arise from the facts of this case when viewed in favor of the state require us to reverse the trial court order which granted appellee’s motion to dismiss. State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Reversed and remanded.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…. 3.190(d) in its amended traverses. The inferences arising from the facts, when viewed in the state’s favor, require us to reverse the trial court’s order, and remand for reinstatement of all counts in the second amended information. State v. Boom, 490 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); State v. Pettis, 397 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We withdraw our previous opinion [*1238] and substitute the following with clarifications thereof. On June 22, 1989, Fea…
-
State v. Graham, 492 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…After reviewing the record, we find that there is a material issue of fact on whether defendant attempted to escape or whether defendant abandoned his attempt. See §§ 944.40, 777.04(1), and 777.04(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (1983). See also State v. Boom, 490 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. Rogers, 386 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We hold the trial court erred in resolving these issues on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Rogers. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order, reinstate the information, a…
-
State v. Feldman, 522 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…the trial court not only assumed the role of fact finder, but it also failed to heed the principle that “it is not the trial court’s function to determine whether the state’s evidence excluded all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.” State v. Boom, 490 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Moreover, “in considering the [rule 3.190(c)(4)] motion, the trial court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the state.” State v. Fry, 422 So. 2d 78, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). We find nothing in the record to suggest…
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. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- State v. Cook, 354 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- The Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty. v. State of Fla. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Pinellas Cnty. Custodial Union No. 1221 of the Int'l Bhd. of Firemen & Oilers, 354 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. FRY, 422 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Vanhoosen v. State, 469 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- State v. Wood, 299 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- State v. Dixon, 450 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)