STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EDNA MAE CASON, DEFENDANT
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 Florida Supreme Court rejected a certified question from a trial court regarding whether a defendant charged with murder could be compelled to speak with a court-appointed psychiatrist without violating their Fifth Amendment rights. The Court found the question was not ripe for decision as it would not facilitate the final disposition of the case.
The Florida Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question, finding that it was not presented in a manner that would facilitate the final disposition of the cause as required by the relevant rule.
“whether the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is violated by a court order requiring a defendant charged with first degree murder to answer questions by a psychiatrist appointed pursuant to the requirement of F.S. Sec. 909.17, F.S.A. on penalty that defendant's psychiatric testimony based on interview would be excluded at trial "unless and until the same cooperation is given to the psychiatrist appointed by this Court."”
This quote states the core question certified by the trial court to the Supreme Court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA defendant charged with first-degree murder was ordered by the trial court to answer questions from a court-appointed psychiatrist. The order stipula…
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 Evidentiary Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
By a certificate pursuant to Rule 4.6, F.A. R., 31 F.S.A., the trial court in this cause presents the question of whether the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is violated by a court order requiring a defendant charged with first degree murder to answer questions by a psychiatrist appointed pursuant to the requirement of F.S. Sec. 909.17, F.S.A. on penalty that defendant’s psychiatric testimony based on interview would be excluded at trial “unless and until the same cooperation is given to the psychiatrist appointed by this Court.”
It is apparent from a consideration of the certificate and the state of the proceedings out of which it arises that instruction on the question presented will not at this point “facilitate the final disposi*258tion of tlie cause” as required by the rule, supra. Previous cases rejecting inquiries on evidentiary and related issues have reinforced the clear language of the rule limiting its use to situations where the cause itself may be finally disposed of at this point in the proceeding if the question is conclusively resolved in one party’s favor. Newcomb v. Roarty, Fla.1957, 93 So.2d 373; In re Taylor, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 476.
Because of the express limitation of the rule and its clear intent to preclude inappropriate interference with the exercise of trial jurisdiction, the certificate should be rejected.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and DREW, O’CON-NELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parkin v. State, 222 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…lied upon as a defense, to submit to examination by medical experts, without violating said defendant’s constitutional rights against forced self-incrimination? This question was presented to the Florida Supreme Court in the case of State v. Cason, 194 So. 2d 257 (1967), but the court declined to answer because its answer would not “facilitate the final disposition of the cause.” The Florida Supreme Court however, in McVeigh v. State (Fla.1954) 73 So. 2d 694, held Section 909.17, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., co…
Authorities Cited
- Curtis S. Newcomb and wife v. Edward P. Roarty and wife, 93 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1957)
- In re Est. of Louise Thourez v. Palmer First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Sarasota, 166 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- In re Adoption by Benny J. Taylor and Maxine C. Taylor, 166 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)