THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MANUEL ZAMORA, 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 appealed the dismissal of a cocaine trafficking charge after the trial court granted a second mistrial on double jeopardy grounds. The appellate court reversed, holding that where a mistrial is granted at the defendant's request, reprosecution is not barred by double jeopardy absent a showing of intentional prosecutorial bad faith, and that trivial discovery violations do not justify mistrial.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that reprosecution is not barred on double jeopardy grounds where a mistrial is granted at the defendant's request absent a showing of intentional prosecutorial bad faith or judicial conduct designed to produce the mistrial. Trivial discovery violations that do not create irreparable prejudice do not justify mistrial or double jeopardy dismissal.
[1] Reprosecution after a mistrial granted at the defendant's request is not barred by double jeopardy absent a showing of intentional prosecutorial bad faith or judicial con…
[2] A prosecutor is responsible for evidence withheld by other state agents, such as law enforcement officers, and is charged with constructive knowledge and possession there…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“where a mistrial is granted at the defendant's request, reprosecution is not barred on double jeopardy grounds absent a showing of intentional prosecutorial bad faith or judicial conduct designed to produce the mistrial”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for double jeopardy protection when defendant requests mistrial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZamora was charged with trafficking in 400 or more grams of cocaine. The first trial resulted in a mistrial due to a discovery violation regarding fin…
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 Richardson Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
This appeal is brought from a trial court order dismissing an information on double jeopardy grounds.
The defendant, Manuel Zamora, was charged by information with trafficking in 400 or more grams of cocaine in violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1987). A defense motion for mistrial was granted because of an alleged discovery violation, i.e., that police officers had not informed the defendant or the prosecutor that the package containing the cocaine had been submitted for fingerprint testing and that no latent prints were found.
At a new trial, a month later, the State’s chemist testified that the cocaine involved in the case had been taken from the evidence vault for reanalysis, pursuant to a Metropolitan Dade Police Department security policy that involves random sampling of long-stored, contraband evidence. There was no proof, or even a suggestion, that the evidence was tampered with. Nevertheless, the defendant was granted an overnight continuance to take the chemist’s deposition. The record shows (1) no willful prosecutorial misconduct, (2) no tampering with the evidence, and (3) that the claimed discovery violations were trivial and not prejudicial to the defendant.
After expressing displeasure with police department procedures generally, and with the random reanalysis policy in particular, the trial court granted a second defense motion for mistrial and subsequently entered the order of dismissal on double jeopardy grounds from which this appeal is brought.
The state attorney is responsible for evidence which is being withheld by other state agents, such as law enforcement officers, and is charged with constructive knowledge and possession thereof, for discovery purposes. State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1984). However, where a mistrial is granted at the defendant’s request, reprosecution is not barred on double jeopardy grounds absent a showing of intentional prosecutorial bad faith or judicial conduct designed to produce the mistrial. Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982); Keen v. State, 504 So. 2d 396 (Fla.1987); State v. Hutchens, 517 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
There is no allegation, or showing in the record, of intentional prosecutorial misconduct. The facts, as found by the trial court, after a Richardson inquiry and controlling principles of law, do not support the granting of a mistrial. The discovery rule was designed to furnish a defendant with information which would bona fide assist him in the defense of a charge against him; it was never intended to provide a defendant with a procedural device to escape justice where the State fails to disclose trivial information. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971); Johnson v. State, 427 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1048, 104 S.Ct. 723, 79 L.Ed. 2d 185 (1984). Where the State fails to provide discovery but there is no irreparable prejudice to the defendant, sanctions, where appropriate, should be directed to the offending persons. State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d at 612.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the information.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gaines, 770 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2000)…request, repros-ecution is not barred on double jeopardy grounds absent a showing of intentional prosecutorial bad faith or judicial conduct designed to produce the mistrial. See Rutherford v. State, 545 So. 2d 853, 855 (Fla.1989); State v. Zamora, 538 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (citing Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982)). We explained the governing principles regarding mistrials and double jeopardy in Fuente v. State, 549 So. 2d 652, 657-58 (Fla.1989): The double…
-
Pura v. State, 789 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ed to act promptly to obtain discovery. See generally Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971) (discovery rule for exchange of witness list was never intended to furnish a defendant with a procedural device to escape justice); State v. Zamora, 538 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (discovery rules were designed to furnish defendants with information to assist in defense and were not intended to provide a procedural device to escape justice); see also State v. Fraser, 426 So. 2d 46 [*440] (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…
-
State v. Gaines, 731 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…hould have argued to the trial court that it should exercise its discretion not to consider the motion to suppress unless the defendant would agree to a mistrial, in the event the motion was granted. The third district explained in State v. Zamora, 538 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) that: [Wjhere a mistrial is granted at the defendant’s request, reprosecution is not barred on double jeopardy grounds absent a showing of intentional prosecuto-rial bad faith or judicial conduct designed to produce the mistr…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982)
- State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Keen v. State, 504 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1987)
- Kemp v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 464 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1984)
- Johnson v. Florida, 464 U.S. 1048 (U.S. 1984)
- Johnson v. State, 427 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State v. Hutchens, 517 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)