THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH HERNANDEZ, 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.
Florida's Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of two informations filed against Hernandez for unlawfully obtaining narcotic drugs by false name or address. The Court held that Florida law does not require grand jury indictment or prior probable cause hearing for non-capital felonies, and that neither the state constitution nor federal constitution precludes prosecution by information alone.
Neither Florida's state constitution nor the federal constitution requires a grand jury indictment or prior probable cause hearing for prosecution of non-capital felonies by information. Fla. Stat. § 904.01(1965) expressly authorizes prosecution of non-capital offenses by information filed by the prosecuting attorney under oath, and preliminary hearings are not indispensable prerequisites to filing informations.
“All capital offenses shall be tried on indictment by a grand jury, and all other cases may he tried either by indictment by grand jury or information filed by the prosecuting attorney under oath”
Establishes that Florida law expressly permits non-capital felonies to be prosecuted by information without grand jury indictment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State Attorney filed two informations against Hernandez for violations of Fla. Stat. § 398.19(1)(d), which prohibits unlawfully obtaining narcotic…
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 Information cases and more on FLexlaw
We have for review consolidated appeals from the Dade County Criminal Court of Record. That Court quashed two informa-tions filed by the State Attorney against the appellee for violations of Fla.Stat. § 398.19(1) (d) (1965) F.S.A. This statute proscribes unlawfully obtaining narcotic drugs by giving a false name or by giving a false address. Violations of § 398.19(1) (d) are non-capital felonies. Fla.Stat. 398.-22(2) (1965) F.S.A. The trial court held that organic due process precludes a prosecution of an information unsupported by a prior indictment or a preliminary hearing showing probable cause.
We are called upon to decide whether the prosecution of appellee by information not preceded by an indictment or a probable cause hearing constitutes an unconstitutional deprivation of due process of law.
Fla.Stat. § 904.01 (1965), F.S.A., plainly authorizes the institution of the instant prosecution by direct information for it expressly provides:
“All capital offenses shall be tried on indictment by a grand jury, and all other cases may he tried either by indictment by grand jury or information filed by the prosecuting attorney under oath, except as is otherwise provided in the constitution of the state, and excepting cases of impeachment and in cases in the militia when in active service in time of war, or which the state with consent of congress may keep in time of peace.” (Emphasis supplied.)
See also similar provision in Fla.Const. Dec. of Rights, § 10, F.S.A.
From the foregoing it is clear that there is no constitutional requirement under Florida law that a prosecution for a non-capital felony be instituted by an indictment. Furthermore, there is no federal constitutional impediment to dispensing entirely with the grand jury system in State prosecutions. Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541, 82 S.Ct. 955, 8 L.Ed.2d 98 (1962); Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 4 S. Ct. 111, 292, 28 L.Ed 232 (1884).
A preliminary hearing is for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to hold one accused for trial and is not an indispensable prerequisite to the *111filing of an information. Palmieri v. State, 198 So.2d 633 (Fla.1967); Rouse v. State, 44 Fla. 148, 32 So. 784 (1902). Prosecution may be instituted and maintained regardless of whether probable cause is or is not found. Palmieri v. State, supra; Baugus v. State, 141 So.2d 264 (Fla.1962). Furthermore, prosecutions instituted on infor-mations by prosecutors without a prior judicial determination of probable cause have been approved in Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91, 34 S.Ct. 712, 58 L.Ed. 1231 (1914), and Lem Woon v. Oregon, 229 U.S. 586, 33 S.Ct. 783, 57 L.Ed. 1340 (1913).
The Orders of the Dade County Criminal Court of Record are reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS (Ret.), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. Louie L. Wainwright, 243 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…bind the accused over. The prosecuting officer in Florida is empowered to proceed with the filing of an information against the accused even if no probable cause was found in a preliminary hearing. Sangaree v. Hamlin, supra, and State v. Hernandez, 217 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1968). Moreover, Section 909.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., authorizes the holding of a preliminary hearing at the request of the defendant during which the issue of probable cause may be tested if it is believed, as indicated by the court in…
-
Cook v. State, 921 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…nses during the revocation proceeding.” Id. at 1140. The court also noted that “in an analogous situation, a prosecution may be instituted even though there is a finding of no probable cause at a preliminary hearing.” Id. (citing State v. Hernandez, 217 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1968)). Although the court in Green did not discuss the collateral estoppel issue in depth, its holding that collateral estoppel did not arise from the determination made in the probation revocation proceeding is instructive concerning the impa…
-
Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1985)…02 So. 2d 1147 (Fla.1981); State v. Jones, 425 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We note that, in an analogous situation, a prosecution may be instituted even though there is a finding of no probable cause at a preliminary hearing. State v. Hernandez, 217 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1968). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed, we approve the decision and opinion of the district court. It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ALDERMAN, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which ADKINS, J.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hurtado v. People of California, 110 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1884)
- Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1962)
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1914)
- Lem Woon v. State of Or., 229 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1913)
- Rouse v. State, 44 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1902)
- Carmine Vincent Palmieri v. State, 198 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1967)