THE STATE OF FLORIDA APPELLANT,
v.
TOMAS BRUNO GORRIO, 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's Third District Court of Appeal vacated a trial court order excluding the State's two principal witnesses, holding that the State is not responsible for witnesses' lack of cooperation and that exclusion is inappropriate without attempting lesser sanctions first.
The State is not responsible for its witnesses' lack of cooperation with the defense, and exclusion of witnesses is only appropriate when lesser sanctions have been attempted without success.
[1] Exclusion of prosecution witnesses is appropriate only when lesser sanctions have been attempted without success, and the State bears no responsibility for witness cooper…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant Tomas Bruno Gorrio sought to exclude the State's two principal witnesses, who were minors and alleged victims in the case. The witnesses…
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 Exclusion Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State petitions this Court for writ of certiorari in order for us to review the trial court’s order granting defendant Tomas Bruno Gorrio’s motion to exclude the State’s two principal witnesses. We hereby grant the petition and vacate the order under review.
The State is not responsible for its witnesses’ lack of cooperation with Gorrio’s defense attorney, nor is the State responsible for procuring witnesses for defense discovery purposes. See State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In fact, these witnesses, both minors (and the alleged victims in the case), have frustrated both the defense and the State with their lack of cooperation. However, the State made efforts to procure these witnesses; indeed, the witnesses did appear for deposition by Gorrio’s attorney, only to have the attorney discontinue the deposition when the State rejected the defense proposition of a below-guidelines sentence for Gorrio. Further, even the witnesses’ failure to appear at deposition would not justify the exclusion of the witnesses at trial. See State v. Jackson, 436 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Exclusion of witnesses is only appropriate when some lesser sanction has been attempted without success. See State v. Gonzalez, 695 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Certiorari granted; order vacated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Davis, 857 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…tile, an order excluding a witness’s testimony is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Id.; State v. Hill, 532 So. 2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Farley, 788 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); State v. Gorrio, [*351] 726 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Gonzalez, 695 So. 2d 1290, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The circuit court’s order and the transcript of the pretrial hearing in this case do not reflect any consideration by the court of a less severe sanction. Indeed,…
-
State v. Farley, 788 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ear for deposition and imposing such other, lesser sanctions as might have been appropriate. Exclusion of a witness for failure to appear at a deposition is appropriate only when lesser sanctions have been attempted without success. State v. Gorrio, 726 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). For the reasons discussed, we hold that the order excluding the witness from testifying at trial was a departure from the essential requirements of law. The writ of certiorari is granted and the order excluding the testimony of…
-
State v. Mendez, 821 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…. The correctness of the October 2000 order excluding witnesses is not before us. Exclusion of witnesses is a disfavored remedy to be employed only as a last resort. See State v. Brown, 782 So. 2d 526, 527-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); State v. Gorrio, 726 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Gonzalez, 695 So. 2d 1290, 1291-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Pope, 675 So. 2d 165, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Donaldson v. State, 656 So. 2d 580, 580-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Knight v. State, 373 So. 2d 52, 53 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Eutansio Antolin Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- State v. Gonzalez, 695 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- State v. Jackson, 436 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Tole Elec. OF Fla. v. Mel Harris and Francine Harris, 436 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)