THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SEAN CASEY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Credibility Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. A trial court is required to accept evidence which has not been impeached, discredited, controverted, contradictory within itself or physically impossible. See State v. Moreno, 558 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); State v. G.H., 549 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Here, the only evidence presented at the suppression hearing was the testimony of the police officers. The testimony of the police officers was not impeached, discredited, controverted, contradictory within itself or physically impossible. Therefore the trial court was required to accept this evidence, and it was error to grant the motion to suppress. See State v. Fernandez, 526 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse the order below.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ojeda, 147 So. 3d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…een discounted by the trial judge, and the trial judge cites no such evidence. See State v. Fernandez, supra; see also State v. Dickson, 35 So. 3d 1027, 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); State v. Wong, 990 So. 2d 1154,1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); State v. Casey, 821 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Cordero v. State, 669 So. 2d 1075,1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. G.H., 549 So. 2d 1148,1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Moreover, Detective Orenstein and Officer Benjamin had every right to proceed to the front door of the hous…
-
State v. Jones, 849 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ly suggestive. It is well-settled law that, absent inapplicable exceptions, a “trial court is required to accept evidence which has not been impeached, discredited, controverted, contradictory within itself or physically impossible.” State v. Casey, 821 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); State v. G.H., 549 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Fernandez, 526 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dismissed, 531 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.1988), and cases cited therein. As noted by the trial court in its order, Offi…
-
J.Q. v. State, 41 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…d find that the detective’s testimony was incredible. The trial court rejected this argument and denied the motion to suppress evidence. We see no basis on which we can overturn the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress. See State v. Casey, 821 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Immediately after the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, the trial began. The detective was recalled to the stand and the parties inquired of the detective in greater detail. The detective again testified that he arreste…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Fernandez, 526 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Wright v. State, 549 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Moreno, 558 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Tenneboe v. Tenneboe, 558 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)