STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY GILBERT WRIGHT, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1989-05-25
No. 88-1991
DAUKSCH, J. and CONRAD, R.F., Associate Judge, concur.
545 So. 2d 360 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

The State appeals the dismissal of a first-degree murder indictment against Jerry Gilbert Wright. The trial court dismissed based on pre-arrest delay and loss of records, but the appellate court reverses, holding that Wright failed to establish actual prejudice required to support such dismissal.


Holding

The appellate court holds that Wright failed to meet the first test for dismissal based on pre-arrest delay—demonstrating actual prejudice—because records of a 1979 Chicago trip do not materially negate the State's theory that Wright was in Chicago in late 1980 or early 1981, and thus the loss of those records does not constitute actual prejudice to his defense.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant seeking dismissal of an indictment based on pre-arrest delay must demonstrate actual prejudice, meaning a material impairment of their capacity to prepare a d…

[2] Speculative or general allegations of prejudice, such as the disappearance of alibi witnesses or failure of memory, are insufficient to warrant dismissal of an indictment…

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

Key Quotes

“To merit dismissal of an indictment or information on the basis of a pre-arrest delay, two tests must be passed. First, the defendant must show that the delay caused him to suffer actual prejudice, i.e. a material impairment of his capacity to prepare a defense.”

Establishes the two-part test for pre-arrest delay dismissals, with the requirement that the defendant show actual prejudice.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Wright was indicted in October 1987 for the April 1981 murder of Robert G. Clemente, allegedly hired by Wright in late 1980 or early 1981. Clemente wa…

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.


Opinion of the Court
GOSHORN, Judge.

GOSHORN, Judge.

The state appeals the dismissal of the indictment against Jerry Gilbert Wright for first degree murder. We agree and reverse.

Wright was indicted on October 13, 1987 for the first degree murder of Robert G. Clemente. The theory of the state’s case is that Wright had gone to Chicago in late 1980 or early 1981 and hired one Peter Ventura, with the help of Jack McDonald, to kill Clemente. Clemente was a former employee and part owner of one of Wright’s businesses, having purchased an interest in Wright’s corporation in June of 1980. In July of 1980, a key man life insurance policy purchased by the corporation, insuring Clemente, became effective. The corporation was the beneficiary. Clemente was murdered April 15, 1981.

Wright’s motion to dismiss the indictment argued that his constitutional due process rights were violated because of the State’s negligent delay in prosecuting the action and that records vital to the defendant’s case were lost during the period of delay.

Wright claims he was in Chicago in 1979. Airline, hotel, rental car, credit card and phone company records relating to this trip were purged by the respective companies after a three year period and Wright’s copies were no longer available. He alleges these records are essential to his defense to prove that he was in Chicago in 1979, and not late 1980 or early 1981 as the State claims.

To merit dismissal of an indictment or information on the basis of a pre-arrest delay, two tests must be passed. First, the defendant must show that the delay caused him to suffer actual prejudice, i.e. a material impairment of his capacity to prepare a defense. Howell v. State, 418 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Speculative or general allegations of prejudice, such as a disappearance of alibi witnesses or failure of memory are insufficient. Rogers v. State, 511 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). See also, Marrero v. State, 428 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Second, if the court finds actual prejudice, it then must determine if the prejudice suffered by the defendant outweighs the particular reasons asserted by the state for the delay. This analysis is done on a case-by-case basis. Rogers, supra.

Wright fails the first test. Records demonstrating that Wright was in Chicago in 1979 do not negate that he was also in Chicago in late 1980 or early 1981. Those 1979 records are not material or relevant to Wright’s defense except in an indirect manner. It cannot be said that the inability to produce the records of that trip result in actual prejudice.

Having found no actual prejudice, it is unnecessary to discuss the reasons for the State’s delay. The order dismissing the indictment is reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, J. and CONRAD, R.F., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Hope, 89 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
    …initial burden of showing actual prejudice. Rogers, 511 So. 2d at 531. “The prejudice must amount to ‘a material impairment of his capacity to prepare a defense.’ ” State v. Ingram, 736 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (quoting State v. Wright, 545 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)). “Speculative or general allegations of prejudice, such as a disappearance of alibi witnesses or failure of memory are insufficient.” Wright, 545 So. 2d at 361 (citing Rogers, 511 So. 2d 526). In this case, the trial court…
  • State v. Ingram, 736 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
    …te, 581 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1991); Rogers v. State, 511 So. 2d 526 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). The prejudice must amount to “a material impairment of his capacity to prepare a defense.” State v. Wright, 545 So. 2d 360, 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Where the defendant claims he is prejudiced by the unavailability of witnesses, he must explain “how their testimony would have been both favorable and material.” Marrero v. State, 428 So. 2d 304, 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). If…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw