STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAY YZAGUIRRE, 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.
In this capital sexual battery case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of an amended information charging crimes against the defendant's minor daughter. The court held that dismissal based on vague time frames was improper unless the state failed to exhaust available investigative methods to establish more precise dates.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that dismissal was improper if the state had exercised reasonable and meaningful efforts to develop greater certainty of the crimes' dates through available means beyond the victim's deposition. If the state exhausted its ability to define actual or reasonably approximate dates, the information should not have been dismissed.
[1] An information may be dismissed for vagueness and indefiniteness regarding the time frame of alleged criminal conduct if the state had the ability to be more specific but…
[2] A trial court should not dismiss an information for lack of time specificity if the state has exhausted its ability to define actual or reasonably approximate dates of th…
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“It is proper for the trial court to dismiss an information on the basis of time frame specificity when the state had the ability to be more specific but failed to do so.”
Establishes the standard for dismissal based on vague time frames—only proper if state failed to exercise available means to narrow dates
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay Yzaguirre was charged with capital sexual battery involving his minor natural daughter. The amended information alleged crimes occurred during two…
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 Vagueness and Indefiniteness cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
The central question before us in this capital sexual battery matter, arising from acts alleged to have been engaged in by Yzaguirre with his minor natural daughter, is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Count II of an amended information alleging that the crimes occurred in periods from March 10, 1968 to March 10, 1970 and March 10, 1970 to March 10, 1971. The trial court dismissed the amended information finding it vague and indefinite. We reverse and remand.
A hearing was conducted on August 7, 1989, at which the time specificity of the instant information was raised before the trial court. On that occasion, the state announced that it would “make an effort to narrow” the periods when the illegal acts occurred. Thereafter, but prior to a hearing held on December 13, 1989, the then adult daughter was deposed and examined at length with respect to when the illicit behavior took place, but she was unable to fix exact dates. At the December 13 hearing, Yzaguirre’s attorney sought a more definite statement of the times when the crimes were committed. The state, in reliance upon the daughter’s deposition, contended that the state had “done all it can to narrow the time frames within the charges.” See State v. Belton, 468 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
Based upon the record before us, dismissal of the amended information can rest only upon a finding that the state, contrary to its representations, failed to exhaust avenues of inquiry which may have produced more precise dates identifying the periods of Yzaguirre’s alleged criminal conduct. See Knight v. State, 506 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). “It is proper for the trial court to dismiss an information on the basis of time frame specificity when the state had the ability to be more specific but failed to do so.” State v. Jones, 539 So. 2d 535, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
. In reaching our resolution of this matter, we are not unmindful that our supreme court has determined that “time is not ordinarily’ a substantive part of an indictment or information and there may be a variance between the dates proved at trial” and those that are alleged in the charging instrument. Tingley v. State, 549 So. 2d 649 (Fla.1989). Here, however, because of the many years which have elapsed between the alleged periods when the crimes were alleged to have been committed and the filing of the amended information, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that Yzaguirre will not be “hampered in preparing his defense.” Id. at p. 651.
Thus, on balance, if in fact the state exhausted its ability to define actual or reasonably approximate dates with respect to when the crimes were committed, the information should not have been dismissed. If, on the other hand, the state failed to undertake narrowing the periods, dismissal was appropriate.
Accordingly, we remand this matter for the conduct of a hearing the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the state was able to develop through available means, in addition to taking the victim’s deposition, greater certainty of the crimes’ dates. If the trial court finds that the state has exercised reasonable and meaningful efforts in seeking to attain specific dates, the trial court is directed to vacate its order dismissing the information.
PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nuckolls, 677 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ed for the beginning of the conspiracy from February 20, 1980 to February 18, 1983. The ending date of the conspiracy remained May 14, 1984. We find that the narrowing of the dates for the conspiracy was not a substantive change. State v. Yzaguirre, 569 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Next, we must determine whether the changing of the language defining the crime and the addition of a new paragraph in the Sixth Amended Information substantially [*14] changed the crime. The Fourth Amended Information charged t…
-
State v. Theriault, 590 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…lity to define actual or reasonably approximate dates with respect to when the offenses were committed unless the court can say with any degree of certainty that the defendant will not be "hampered in preparation of his defense." State v. Yzaguirre, 569 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We have also considered the cases of Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla.1984) and State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1983) upon which the state relies. These two cases are not applicable because they do not specifically d…
-
State v. Dell'orfano, 592 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…longer time frame. We also note that the caselaw relied upon by appellee does not even consider the length of time that may have passed between the commission of the crime and the filing of the information. On the other hand, in State v. Yzaguirre, 569 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the court reversed an order dismissing an information alleging sexual batteries on the defendant’s minor child over a period between March 10, 1968 to March 10, 1970, and a period from March 10, 1970 to March 10, 1971. In 1989, t…
Authorities Cited
- Tingley v. State, 549 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Belton, 468 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Knight v. State, 506 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- State v. Jones, 539 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)