STATE EX REL. JOHNNY LEE FORT, RELATOR,
v.
HONORABLE B. J. DRIVER, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 court held that a witness's fear for her safety, even if not directly caused by the defendant, can constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a delay in trial under the speedy trial rules.
A crucial witness in a first-degree murder case fled the state due to fear for her safety, attributed to the defendant's relatives. The trial judge gr…
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.
A Crucial witness in the State’s first degree murder case against Fort testified at a hearing on the State’s motion for extension of time that she was in fear and left the state for her own safety. She is now in protective custody at an undisclosed location. The trial judge found, correctly, that there was no showing that “the accused has caused major delay or disruption of preparation of proceedings, as by preventing the attendance of witnesses or otherwise,” CrPR 3.191(f) (vi), 33 F.S.A., but that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances. CrPR 3.191(f) (iii) permits delay upon a showing “that specific evidence or testimony is not available despite diligent efforts to secure it, but will become available at a later time.”
It was not necessary that the State show that the defendant himself threatened the life of the witness. The important thing is that she fled, for good reason, on account of rumors which came through her relatives and, rightly or wrongly, were attributed to his relatives. The trial judge soundly interpreted the rule.
We might mention that considerable judicial labor could have been saved by a little more diligence on the part of counsel for both sides in bringing to judicial attention the problems involved here. An earlier motion for extension and earlier application for relief in this court would have conduced to the smoother administration of justice.
Prohibition denied and because the trial of this case is imminent, rehearing is dispensed with.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of K. M. v. Honorable Joseph Baker, 366 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…ying in the same circuit on the Friday of the week in which petitioner was scheduled to be tried. The State argues that the witness was unavailable and relies upon State v. Wolfe, 271 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), and State ex rel. Fort v. Driver, 270 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). The Wolfe case held the unavailability of a key witness due to injuries alleged to have been committed by the accused was an exceptional circumstance so as to warrant an extension of time. Obviously, this case has no application…