STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREAS SCHEUSCHNER, 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 appellate court reversed a trial court's order excluding the state's key witness based on credibility determinations, holding that witness credibility is exclusively a jury function and cannot be decided by the trial judge pretrial.
A trial court cannot exclude a witness pretrial based solely on a determination that the witness's testimony is not worthy of belief, as credibility determinations are exclusively within the jury's province.
[1] A trial court cannot exclude a witness pretrial based solely on the judge's determination that the witness's testimony is not credible, as credibility determinations are…
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 trial court declared a mistrial and sought to exclude Gregory Glover, the state's key witness, from testifying in any future trial of Andreas Sche…
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 Witness Credibility Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on a petition for writ of certiorari from an order declaring a mistrial and excluding the testimony of the state’s key witness, Gregory Glover, in the trial of Andreas Scheus-chner. See State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988) (holding the district courts of appeal have the ability to review a pretrial evidentiary order where the state would suffer irreparable harm if the order were not reviewed).
The trial court declared a mistrial and excluded Glover as a witness in any future trial based solely upon its determination that Glover’s testimony was “not worthy of belief.” Determining the credibility of witnesses, however, is within the province of the jury. See Davis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1055 (Fla.1997).
The trial court violated this clearly established principle of law, and, unless corrected, the erroneous ruling will cause material injury to the state, which will not be susceptible to correction by appeal following the entry of a final judgment because an acquittal would preclude the state from seeking review.
Thus, we grant the petition, reverse the trial court’s order insofar as it excludes Gregory Glover as a witness in any future trial of Andreas Scheuschner, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALLEN, C.J., DAVIS and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gerry, 855 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…eview of the trial court’s pretrial order excluding one of its witnesses from testifying at trial, cer-tiorari review is appropriate because the state has no right to a direct appeal in the event the defendant is acquitted. See State v. Scheuschner, 829 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); State v. Brown, 782 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Hence, in the instant case, the State properly challenges the trial court’s order through a petition for writ of certiorari. We next determine whether the trial court’s ruling…
-
State v. Martin, 982 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…a state witness from testifying at trial when the order substantially impairs the state’s ability to prosecute its case. State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988); see, e.g. State v. Gerry, 855 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); State v. Scheuschner, 829 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); State v. Brown, 782 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). The trial court excluded Zapata from testifying finding that he had no relevant or admissible evidence to provide at trial. The court considered the sworn statement which Zapa…
-
Bradley v. Cooper, 40 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…o find” for the respondent) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)), we are constrained2 to reverse and remand this case for further proceedings. See State v. Scheuschner, 829 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (finding the trial court violated clearly established principle of law when excluding testimony of State’s key witness upon a determination the testimony was “not worthy of belief’); State v. Nemeth, 581 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Toney Deron Davis v. State, 703 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1997)