THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEWART LEVINE, 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.
The State appealed from a trial court's order granting a new trial to Stewart Levine after his conviction for unlawful sale of central nervous system stimulants. The appellate court affirmed the new trial order, finding that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion based on the State's failure to produce a key witness that the defense relied upon the State to secure.
The appellate court affirmed the new trial order, holding that under the particular circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that justice required a new trial. However, the court emphasized that there is a general settled rule requiring defendants to subpoena witnesses they expect to rely upon for their defense, and this case constitutes an exception to that rule.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial when the State fails to produce a witness whose unavailability was the basis for a continuance, and th…
[2] A defendant generally has a duty to subpoena witnesses they expect to rely upon for their defense.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As a result of the State's having failed ultimately to produce and use the aforedescribed witness at the trial of these causes, the defense was deprived of the opportunity of calling that witness as a defense witness and was thereby deprived of a fair trial.”
The trial judge's finding of the factual basis for granting a new trial—that the State's failure to produce a promised witness deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLevine was charged with two counts of unlawful sale of central nervous system stimulants. The cases were previously called for trial in May 19X1, when…
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 Fair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals from an order granting the appellee a new trial after a finding that the appellee was guilty of two charges of unlawful sale of central nervous system stimulants. Since the transcript of the testimony at the trial is not included in the record before us, we must rely upon the trial judge’s evaluation of that testimony. He found as follows:
* * * * * *
“(1) These consolidated cases had been previously called for trial in May 19X1, at which time the State of Florida requested a continuance of the trial on the ground that one of its witnesses was unavailable and that the State intended to have such witness available upon the next occasion of the calling of the cases for trial;
“(2) The State’s witness hereinabove referred to was an integral part of the transactions for which the Defendant was arrested and charged, and, therefore, said witness became potentially a defense witness available to the defense to testify as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest; and
“(3) Because of the State’s representations the defense did not attempt itself to procure the presence of the afore-described witness, inasmuch as the witness was not within the limits of Dade County and was incarcerated in another County, the State being therefore better able to obtain the presence of the witness than the defense; and
“(4) As a result of the State’s having failed ultimately to produce and use the aforedescribed witness at the trial of these causes, the defense was deprived of the opportunity of calling that witness as a defense witness and was thereby deprived of a fair trial.”
******
We affirm the order granting appellee a new trial because under the particular circumstances of this case there is nothing in the record to show that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that justice required a new trial. We *470think, however, that it should be emphasized that there is a settled rule of law making it mandatory that the defendant subpoena the witnesses he expects to rely upon for his defense. This rule has been clearly set forth in Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 62. See also Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 68. We recognize the rule as stated and simply hold that there is not sufficient record before us to indicate that the trial judge erred in finding that this case constituted an exception to the general rule.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Patrick v. State, 203 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- E. Coast DRY Goods Co., Inc. v. Somerset Sportswear, Inc., 151 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Parrish v. State, 151 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)