STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID HARGROVE, 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 a trial court's dismissal of a criminal case after the state's eyewitnesses recanted their testimony. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly evaluated witness credibility on a motion to dismiss rather than allowing the case to proceed to trial where credibility determinations belong.
The court held that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss should be granted only where the most favorable construction to the state would not establish a prima facie case of guilt. The trial court improperly evaluated witness credibility, which is prohibited in Rule 3.190(c)(4) proceedings. The state need only show the barest prima facie case to proceed; credibility determinations are for the jury at trial.
[1] A motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, should be granted only when the most favorable construction of the facts to the state wou…
[2] In a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss, a trial court may not consider the weight of conflicting evidence or the credibility of witnesses.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Like summary judgment motions in civil cases, Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions should be granted rarely, for in most cases there are factual disputes that are properly to be resolved by the jury.”
Establishes the high bar for granting dismissal motions and that factual disputes belong with the jury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with a crime. The state's eyewitnesses, including Embrey, initially testified positively identifying the defendant as the pe…
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 Directed Verdict Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The underlying matter was here earlier in Hargrove v. State, 530 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The state’s eye witnesses recanted their testimony and the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. We reverse.
In State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court discussed rule 3.190(c)(4) motions and said:
Like summary judgment motions in civil cases, Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions should be granted rarely, for in most cases there are factual disputes that are properly to be resolved by the jury. State v. Carroll, 404 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 392 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
On a motion to dismiss, the state is entitled to a construction most favorable to it; all inferences are resolved against the defendant. State v. Green, 400 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
So long as the state shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting. State v. Pentecost, 397 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The defendant is protected in that if the state’s case is insufficient at trial, the defendant may obtain a directed verdict of acquittal, or the jury will find the defendant not guilty. See id.
In sum, only where the most favorable construction to the state would not establish a prima facie case of guilt should a Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, motion to dismiss be granted. State v. Horton, 442 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
In a Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, proceeding, the trial court may not try or determine factual issues nor consider either the weight of the conflicting evidence or the credibility of the witnesses. State v. J.T.S., 373 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (quoting State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Id. at 215-16. To reiterate, “the state need not produce evidence to sustain a conviction. State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). So long as the state shows the barest prima facie case, it should not be prevented from prosecuting.” State v. Bailey, 508 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1273 (Fla.1987).
The question for our resolution is whether the additional evidence from Embrey, that he assumed it was appellee who did the shooting because he recognized the car and the shirt sleeve as matching the car appellee got into and the shirt appellee was wearing, is enough independent proof to state the “barest prima facie case” against appellee in light of Embrey’s recantation of his previous testimony positively identifying appellee as the victim’s killer.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss finding that “the risk of convicting an innocent accused, in the absence of any evidence corroborating the witnesses’ testimony, is simply too great.” The trial court also specifically mentioned Embrey’s comments in the following light: “[t]he only arguably corroborative evidence consists of one of the witnesses’ recanting statements itself.” The trial court added the specific finding that Embrey and Troutman’s recanted testimony made them “utterly unreliable, untrustworthy, and perjurious.”
This last statement particularly is a direct comment on the credibility of the witness which is prohibited in a ruling on a rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d at 216. Dismissals in criminal cases, like summary judgments in civil cases, are to be cautiously granted. Id. at 215. We believe appellant is protected, as the defendants in Hunwick and Bailey, in that if the state’s case is insufficient at trial, he may obtain a directed verdict of acquittal, or a jury verdict of not guilty.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…o. 2d at 1257. Here, unlike the circumstances in Snipes, the state challenged the material facts on which Feagle relied, leaving factual questions for the jury to decide. Dismissals in criminal cases are to be cautiously granted. State v. Hargrove, 552 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). For the reasons stated above, we hold the state met its burden under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d), see Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. den., 352 So. 2d 175 (Fla.1977), and the trial court erred in granting…
-
State v. Brabson, 7 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ions for summary judgment in civil cases. State v. Ortiz, 766 So. 2d 1137, 1141-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). “Dismissals in criminal cases are to be cautiously granted.” State v. Feagle, 600 So. 2d 1236, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing State v. Hargrove, 552 So. 2d 281, 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). In order to defeat a motion to dismiss, “[t]he State need only specifically dispute a material fact alleged by the defendant or add additional material facts that meet the minimal requirement of a prima facie case.” State…
-
State v. Larson, 561 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…o dismiss made pursuant to rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which denies material aspects of appellee’s hypothesis of innocence, we reverse the order dismissing Count I of the indictment and remand for trial. State v. Hargrove, 552 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). REVERSED and REMANDED. HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. J. T. S. and G. R. W., 373 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. West, 262 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- State v. Hunwick, 446 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- State v. Fetherolf, 388 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- State v. Grady Leon Pentecost, 397 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Benny Lee Green, 400 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Sands v. State, 404 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Horton, 442 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)