STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
T.D., A CHILD, 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.
The State appealed a trial judge's dismissal of aggravated battery charges against a juvenile defendant after the State failed to call any witnesses at trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that while the dismissal was technically not a judgment of acquittal (because no jeopardy attached without evidence being presented), the trial judge properly exercised discretion in dismissing given the State's failure to produce witnesses or request a continuance despite the victim's absence.
The trial judge's order was a dismissal, not a judgment of acquittal, because jeopardy did not attach without the presentation of evidence. However, the dismissal was appropriate and the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the State failed to call witnesses, request a continuance, or compel the victim's attendance despite circumstances showing the victim could be made available.
[1] A trial court's disposition of a charge cannot be viewed as a judgment of acquittal if jeopardy has not attached.
[2] Jeopardy attaches in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence, typically when the first witness is placed on the stand and begins to testify.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“in the case of a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the court begins to hear evidence”
Establishes the legal standard for when jeopardy attaches in bench trials, which determines whether the order was an acquittal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT.D., a minor, was charged with aggravated battery on a pregnant woman. The victim had previously failed to appear for deposition and an earlier trial…
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 Order Of Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
T.D., a minor, was charged with aggravated battery on a pregnant woman. When the victim failed to appear for trial, the judge nonetheless insisted that the State proceed. After the State failed to produce any witnesses, the trial judge pronounced T.D. “not guilty.” The State seeks to appeal the order of the trial judge, arguing that the order is in the nature of a dismissal — not a judgment of acquittal — and that the dismissal was too harsh a sanction. T.D., on the other hand, argues that the order is properly viewed as a judgment of acquittal from which the State cannot appeal. We agree with the State that the order is in the nature of a dismissal, but we affirm the trial court’s exercise of discretion in dismissing the case.
T.D.’s crime was to be tried by the trial judge. And, in the case of a bench trial, jeopardy attaches when the court begins to hear evidence. See, e.g., R.M. v. State, 603 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In Bernard v. State, 261 So. 2d 133, 135 (Fla.1972), our supreme court held that a court begins to hear evidence when “the first witness is actually placed on the stand and begins to testify.” Here, no witness ever took the stand. Consequently, jeopardy would not have attached and the trial judge’s disposition of the charge cannot be viewed as a judgment of acquittal. But cf. D.L.B. v. Kirk, 551 So. 2d 611, 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(holding that an order of dismissal based on the State’s failure to present evidence at an adjudicatory hearing is “similar” to a judgment of acquittal and, if not successfully appealed by the State, will operate as an estoppel against the refiling of the same charge).
Generally, the courts have held that “it is inappropriate to sanction the state for failure of a witness to appear by dismissing the case when other means to secure the witness’s participation, such as continuance, exist.” State v. White, 792 So. 2d 606, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); State v. S.M.F., 546 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Here, the record suggests that not only had the victim previously failed to appear for deposition, but that it was the victim’s failure to appear at trial the first time around that resulted in the State’s nolle prosse of the charges and the refiling of the case presently before the court. This time, the State told the trial judge that the victim had been subpoenaed but had a problem with child care. The trial court noted that this was a juvenile case and that continued delay was “prejudicial” to the child: Court: And I’m ready to call the first witness. Where’s the first witness?
State: The State’s not going to call a witness, Judge.
Court: All right. That’s it?
State: I’m not resting either. I’m not calling witnesses or going forward on the trial based upon the Defense’s motion [for speedy trial] and based upon the circumstances. If Your Honor wants to dismiss the case, that’s up to you.
Court: This is total nonsense. I want you to call your first witness. Just tell me — Who’s your first witness?
State: Judge, the State’s not going to call any witnesses.
Obviously frustrated by the State’s failure to call a witness to the stand, ask that the court compel the victim’s attendance, or forthrightly request a continuance, the trial court then entered its “directed verdict” or rather dismissal in this case. Here, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges. Cf. State v. White, 792 So. 2d 606, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(holding that dismissal was appropriate where the victim was absent from trial and the State gave the trial court no assurances that it would serve the victim and go forward with the case if it were continued).
AFFIRMED.
KLEIN, J., and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Amenhotep Alihakeem Kalfani, 968 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ecutor that she would try to find the victim, but she was unsuccessful by the end of the two-week trial docket. The State was unable to provide any assurance to the trial court that it could produce the victim at a later date. Id. In State v. T.D., 837 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), dismissal was upheld when the victim failed to appear for trial in a refiled case. The State had nol prossed the original case after the victim failed to appear for deposition or trial. At the time of trial in the refiled case,…
-
Holcomb v. State, 858 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…jeopardy. At that time, the State stipulated that the amount taken by Holcomb was $3641, the amount reflected in Holcomb’s signed, handwritten “confession.” Jeopardy attaches in a nonjury trial when the court begins to hear evidence. State v. T.D., 837 So. 2d 551, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). In the present case, a witness was sworn and began to testify in the prosecution of the first amended information before the trial court granted the continuance. However, in a nonjury trial, double jeopardy protection does…
-
State v. Lakesha Poitier (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- State v. S.M.F., 546 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- E. S.S. Corp. v. Egan, 261 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1972)
- Bernard v. State, 261 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. White, 792 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Gipson v. State, 603 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- In the Interest of R.M. v. State, 603 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- D.L.B. v. Hon. Thomas S. Kirk, 551 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)