THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
LUIS A. DOMENECH, AND LORENZO BERGAMO, RESPONDENTS
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
LUIS A. DOMENECH, AND LORENZO BERGAMO, RESPONDENTS
533 So. 2d 896
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1988)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The subpoenas issued below at the behest of the defendants were directed to witnesses whose supposed testimony was affirmatively shown to bear no legal pertinence whatever to the issues in the case and thus could not be of any potential assistance in the legitimate defense of the pending charges. See Mazepa v. State, 439 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Doe v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The trial judge therefore erroneously refused to quash the subpoenas, see Kudos v. Vinskus, 483 So. 2d 727, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the order to that effect is for that reason itself quashed.
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. State, 541 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…iolation matter was dismissed. We find no error in this point. Compare Gurganus v. State, 391 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). On the second point, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge issuing the protective order. See State v. Domenech, 533 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kridos v. Vinskus, 483 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Young v. Metropolitan Dade County, 201 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). We likewise find no error in denying the mistrial, examining the evidence in light of the Supreme Court…
Authorities Cited
- DOE v. State, 262 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Kridos v. Vinskus, 483 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Grigory Mazepa v. State, 439 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)