STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ANN ELLIOTT BARBER, RESPONDENT
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 petition for certiorari is granted, and the case is remanded because the trial judge erroneously believed a prior judge had ruled on the matter when no such ruling was ever rendered, requiring the trial court to exercise its discretion on the motion.
A trial judge errs when refusing to exercise discretion based on a mistaken belief that a prior judge has already ruled on the matter when no such ruling was ever rendered.
[1] A trial judge errs in refusing to exercise discretion on a motion when based on the mistaken belief that a prior judge has already ruled on the matter, requiring the judg…
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 State used a computer-generated time line as a demonstrative aid during closing argument in a trial involving similar fact evidence. Although the …
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 Exercise Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s post-trial order requiring it to pro duce a paper reproduction of a computer-generated “time line.” The time line was used as a demonstrative aid by the State during its closing argument to argue similar fact evidence. Although the aid was not introduced into evidence, the defendant wanted to have it made a part of the record on appeal.
We grant the petition, issue the writ, and remand to the trial court to consider the merits of the arguments of both parties regarding the “Motion for Rule to Show Cause/Motion to Direct State of Florida into Immediate Compliance with Trial Court Order.” The matter is before us because the trial judge that granted the motion erroneously believed that another trial judge had previously ruled on the matter after considering the merits. In fact, an order was never “rendered” on the matter, and the trial judge in the instant case erred in refusing to exercise discretion in the matter and in believing that no discretion was exercisable because of an earlier judge’s ruling. See State v. J.M.C., 714 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also State v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Dubose v. State, 714 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. J.M.C., 714 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)