STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT WARNER MCKINNEY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court approved the Third District Court of Appeal's decision to allow a defendant to file cross-assignments of error challenging a suppression order, even when the State had appealed the same order under the statutory appeal provision. The case clarifies that defendants may contest the denial of suppression motions through cross-appeal when the State initiates an appeal.
A defendant may cross-appeal and assign as error the failure of the court to suppress evidence when the State has appealed from a suppression order, even when the suppression order only partially granted the defendant's request. The defendant's right to challenge the denial of suppression on other evidence is not precluded by the State's appeal.
“in a case charging a defendant with unlawful possession of narcotics, tn-wit, cocaine and marijuana may he 'cross appeal and assign as error the failure of the court to suppress all the evidence, allegedly seized illegally, when the state has appealed pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.071”
Sets forth the certified question regarding whether defendants may cross-appeal suppression denials when the State appeals a partial suppression order
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State appealed from an interlocutory order in a narcotics case involving possession of cocaine and marijuana. The trial court had suppressed the c…
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 Certified Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Our jurisdiction of this case is predicated upon a certificate of the Third District Court of Appeal wherein the State had taken an appeal from an interlocutory order and defendant filed cross assignments of error attacking the same order from which the State was appealing.
The State moved to strike the cross assignments of error. The District Court of Appeal entered the following ruling:
“This cause having come on for hearing on appellant’s motion to strike portion of appellee’s brief and the court having considered same, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied. See State v. Mclnnes, 133 So.2d 581.”
Thereupon the District Court certified the question here:
“We hereby certify to the Supreme Court of Florida, under and as provided for in Article V, Section 4(2) of the Constitution of Florida [F.S.A.], as a means of bringing this cause with-iq the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in event certiorari is applied for, that the decision of this court in this case ‘passes upon a question * * * of great public interest,’ in a case charging a defendant with unlawful possession of narcotics, tn-wit, cocaine and marijuana may he 'cross appeal and assign as error the failure of the court to suppress all the evidence, allegedly seized illegally, when the state has appealed pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.071 [F.S.A.] from an order which suppressed the ‘cocaine’ but denied the motion as to all other evidence.”
The lower court was persuaded to allow the cross assignment of error upon authority of State v. Mclnnes, 133 So.2d 581, which is a case decided by the First District Court of Appeal. It is the opinion of this Court that the District Court of Appeal properly answered the certified question and we approve their order.
So ordered.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1994)…enying the State’s motion, the court stated that there was nothing in the appellate rules which prohibited a criminal defendant from cross-appealing an order from which the State had filed an interlocutory appeal. Subsequently, in State v. McKinney, 212 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1968), this Court was faced with a certified question which asked if a defendant could cross-appeal that portion of an order which denied his motion to suppress if the State had taken an interlocutory appeal from a portion of the same order whi…
-
State v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…defendant, the defendant may cross-appeal from that portion of the order which denied his motion to suppress all other evidence. We certified the propriety of that ruling as passing upon a question of great public interest, and in State v. McKinney, 212 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1968), the Supreme Court held that we properly answered the question and approved our order. Thus, the state of the law after the Supreme Court’s approval of this court’s order in McKinney was quite clearly that where in a criminal case the St…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- State v. McINNES, 133 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)