JAMES WESTBERRY, PETITIONER, CROSS-RESPONDENT,

v.

DAVES AUTO PARTS, CORPORATE GROUP SERVICE, INC., AND FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONERS

Citator

Cited By (54 total)

• Salvatore v. State, 366 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1978)
  …ed facts as recited by the stipulation of the parties, particularly the allegation by the appellant that the erased tapes would have been beneficial to him and that destruction thereof resulted in prejudice. (See Treverrow v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1967, 194 So. 2d 250 and Estes v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1974, 294 So. 2d 122.) In other words, the mere fact that a tape recording which might have been used in evidence was inadvertently destroyed does not ipso fac-to lead to reversal. On the contrary, it must be demons…
• State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1977)
  …cisions of Florida appellate courts, and, therefore, the petition in Hassberger should be discharged. The prosecution’s limited privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informer is well established under Florida law. Treverrow v. State, 194 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1967); Harrington v. State, 110 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Even where the informer never testifies at a trial or hearing, but simply provides the police with information which is helpful…
• State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
  …der, para. 5]. This appeal follows. [*867] ii A It is well settled in Florida that the state “has a limited privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informer....” State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla.1977); see Treverrow v. State, 194 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.1967); Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); State v. Hardy, 114 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Harrington v. State, 110 So. 2d 495, 497-98 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). The underlying rationale for this limited privilege is ba…

  ← 1 / 3 →