REMY PIERRE, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Bennett v. State, 23 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
  …v. Gomez, 915 So. 2d 698, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (finding no denial of due process after police lost booking photographs because the photographs were not material exculpatory evidence and police did not intentionally destroy them); State v. Thomas, 826 So. 2d 1048, 1049-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing dismissal of charges against the defendant after the State misplaced the video of the drug transaction because the recording was only "potentially useful” and the defendant failed to establish that the police a…
• State v. Elkins Gomez, 915 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
  …is ease. The State appeals the trial court’s order. “The dismissal of a [criminal] charge is the most severe sanction a court can impose for the destruction of evidence; it is to be used with the greatest caution and deliberation.” State v. Thomas, 826 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing State v. Westerman, 688 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). The Supreme Court has recognized that, when dealing with potentially exculpatory or useful evidence that is permanently lost, “courts face the treacherous task…
• Felder v. State, 873 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
  …e was due to bad faith on the part of the police. In order for there to be a denial of due process, where there is no bad faith, the lost evidence must be more than merely potentially useful to the defense. As the court explained in State v. Thomas, 826 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002): The dismissal of a charge is the most severe sanction a court can impose for the destruction of evidence; it is to be used with the greatest caution and deliberation. State v. Westerman, 688 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).…

Authorities Cited

• Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2000)
• Johnson v. State, 769 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 2000)