THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES LAMONT ELLIS, 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.
The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen a suppression hearing to admit crucial evidence.
The state sought to reopen a suppression hearing to admit crucial evidence after the hearing had concluded and legal arguments were made. The trial co…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The state contends that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen a suppression hearing to admit crucial evidence. We agree and reverse the order under review.
We are persuaded, by the state, that the testimony sought to be admitted would have impacted upon the decision of the trial court and was crucial to the state’s argument. Nonetheless, the trial court refused to reopen the case for the admission of this testimony. This case is similar to the situation presented in Steffanos v. State, 80 Fla. 309, 86 So. 204 (1920). In Steffanos, the parties rested, and the court recessed over the weekend. On Monday morning, defense counsel sought to introduce crucial testimony. In overruling the trial court, the supreme court said that the refusal to reopen a case in such a circumstance “is to enforce a rule of procedure almost to the point of a denial of justice.... [S]uch rules ought not to be applied with such technical precision and unbending rigor as to produce injustice.” 86 So. at 205.
The record indicates that the suppression hearing, ending on May 28, 1985, was either not complete or was reopened — the trial court allowed further legal argument on the issues before it, on June 3, 1985— when the court denied the state’s motion to admit the previously omitted crucial evidence. Where, as here, the case is technically not closed and the ends of justice may best be served by the admission of crucial evidence, it is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to deny the introduction of such evidence. Steffanos, 86 So. at 206.
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Donaldson v. State, 722 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1998)…] that the ends of justice would [be] defeated, or the orderly process of the court disturbed”); Delgado, 573 So. 2d at 86 (finding abuse of discretion where motion timely and refusal to reopen deprived jury of significant evidence); State v. Ellis, 491 So. 2d 1296, 1297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (reversing trial court order denying State’s motion to reopen suppression hearing where hearing not technically closed and ends of justice served by admission of crucial evidence previously omitted). In this case Donaldson…
-
Delgado v. State, 573 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…, Burk v. State, 497 So. 2d 731, 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), a denial will be reversed where the request is timely made and the jury will be deprived of evidence which might have had significant impact upon the issues to be resolved. See State v. Ellis, 491 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Barry v. Walker, 103 Fla. 533, 137 So. 711, 716 (1931); Steffanos v. State, 80 Fla. 309, 86 So. 204, 205-06 (1920). In Steffanos, the supreme court reversed the defendant’s conviction for unlawful carnal intercourse with a previ…1 / 2
-
State v. Laveroni, 910 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ry hearing, raised the qualifications of the narcotics dog. Because the state was not on notice that this was an issue until the court raised it, the court should have granted the state’s request to call witnesses to qualify the dog. State v. Ellis, 491 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (reversing trial court order denying state’s motion to reopen suppression hearing); Donaldson v. State, 722 So. 2d 177 (Fla.1998) (citing Ellis). We accordingly reverse, and, because the issue may come up on remand, explain why we…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steffanos v. State, 80 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1920)