SUSAN P. DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
THE HONORABLE CONSTANCE R. NUTARO, JUDGE OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Recusal Of Judge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon a Petition for Writ of Prohibition we have considered the order of the trial court denying petitioner’s motion for recusal of the respondent.
Regardless of whether the motion is legally sufficient under the standards recognized in Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), we conclude that the order of the trial court requires that the Judge disqualify herself. See Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1978); Gieseke v. Moriarty, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
The tnal court, in response to the motion, entered an extensive three page order which argues points raised in the affidavit in support of the motion. Having thus unintentionally placed herself in an adversarial role, the trial judge then becomes disqualified for the reasons more fully explained in Bundy and Gieseke.
We therefore grant the Writ of Prohibition, quash the order of September 19,1986 and remand with direction that the trial court enter an order of recusal.
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Parker v. State, 641 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1994)…claim that a killing during flight from the commission of a felony is not felony murder. The purpose of the felony-murder statute is to protect the public from inherently dangerous situations caused by the commission of the felony. State v. Hacker, 510 So. 2d 304, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Therefore, “[i]n the absence of some definitive break in the chain of circumstances beginning with the felony and ending with the killing, the felony, although technically complete, is said to continue to the time of the ki…
-
Parker v. State, 570 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)….1955). In determining when flight has terminated, it is useful to consider the purpose of the felony murder statute. That purpose is to protect the public from inherently dangerous situations caused by the commission of the felony. State v. Hacker, 510 So. 2d 304, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Therefore, “[i]n the absence of some definitive break in the chain of circumstances beginning with the felony and ending with the killing, the felony, although technically complete, is said to continue to the time of the ki…
-
Americo Junco and Ernesto R. Esquivel v. State, 510 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…presence at the conference would not have made any difference as to the case against them: because the killings were unintentional and occurred during flight from the robbery, the appellants were properly charged with felony murder. State v. Hacker, 510 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Hence, we find that under all the circumstances, there was no error in the failure to have the appellants present at this pretrial conference or to be present [*912] when the court answered the jury’s questions during deliberat…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Sanford Freed, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978)
- Hayslip v. The Honorable Paul T. Douglas, 400 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- C.J. v. State, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Gieseke v. The Honorable Estella May Moriarty, 471 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)