THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JERRIE MACDONALD BAIST, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insanity Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State has filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an order dated June 21, 1995, wherein the trial court denied the State’s motion for additional compelled examinations of the defendant. Because Rule 3.216(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and State v. Battle, 302 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), provide that the State may call additional expert witnesses on the issue of the defendant’s insanity and that such expert witnesses must be granted access to the defendant and because we find that the alleged tardiness of the State’s request for additional compelled examinations did not prejudice the defendant, we grant the State’s petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order dated June 21, 1995, with directions for the trial court to enter an order granting the State’s motion for additional compelled examinations of the defendant.
Petition granted; order quashed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vance Realty Grp., Inc. v. Park Place AT Metrowest, 909 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…nto the registry of the court pursuant to section 83.232(1). Here, the tenant deposited the funds in the registry without sanction of the court or notice to any other party. As the Fourth District asserted in Geany v. Packers of Indian River, Inc., 660 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), “[t]he authority conferred on a court to order a [*519] deposit of money or property does not apply if the money in the possession of the party is not the subject of the litigation.Id. at 1145 (citations omitted). We conclude t…
-
First States Invs. 3300, LLC v. Pheil, 52 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…rule is inapplicable where the money in question is not the subject of the litigation, see Morroni, 647 So. 2d at 129 (citing rule 1.600 and Wincast Assocs., Inc. v. Hickey, 320 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)); Geany v. Packers of Indian River, Inc., 660 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (citing Wincast Assocs., Inc.). The first problem in this case is that only parts of the monies deposited into the court registry were the subject of the litigation. First States did not dispute the base rent amount. Rathe…
-
Blue Earth Solutions v. Fla. Consol. Props., LLC, 113 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…oney into the registry of the court, this order is not authorized under the facts of this case. The money is not the subject of the suit and is recoverable, if at all, only as a component of money damages. See Geany v. Packers of Indian River, Inc., 660 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that court erred in requiring appellant to deposit sale proceeds into court registry where underlying suit involved lien on items sold rather than sale proceeds). REVERSED. SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Holton v. Atl. Dep't Stores, Inc., 302 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- State v. Battle, 302 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)