STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ADRIAN CUMMINS, 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 writ of certiorari to challenge a discovery order requiring disclosure of which jail calls would be introduced at trial is dismissed because the State failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, despite the order departing from essential legal requirements.
A trial court's discovery order requiring the State to identify which recorded jail calls it will introduce at trial departs from the essential requirements of law, but the petition for certiorari must be dismissed because the State failed to show irreparable harm.
[1] Irreparable harm is a jurisdictional prerequisite to certiorari review and must be established before a court may consider whether a trial court's order departs from the…
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 sought certiorari review of a trial court discovery order requiring it to disclose which recorded jail calls between Adrian Cummins and othe…
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 Discovery Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida petitions for writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s discovery order requiring it to disclose to the defense which,, out of .a number of recorded jail calls between Adrian Cummins (Respondent) and others, would be introduced at trial. Although we conclude the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the. law, see State v. Williams, 678 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that State did not have to tell defendants which documents, out of 285 boxes of documents, it intended on using at trial because to do so would violate work-product doctrine), the State has failed to show irreparable harm. See State v. Milbry, 219 So.3d 160, 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (explaining irreparable harm is jurisdictional and must be found before court may consider whether departure from the essential requirements of the law occurred). Specifically, the State has failed to show that its ability to proper cute Respondent would be significantly impaired by the trial court’s ruling. The trial court indicated that additional calls could be admissible upon a showing of good cause by the State, and the State has not argued that it would be unable to show good- causé. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
DISMISSED.
PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Williams, 678 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- State v. Milbry, 219 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)