IN RE RULE 3.131(B), FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Fla. | 1974-02-04
No. 44958
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur., ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion., BOYD, J., dissents.
289 So. 2d 3 Florida Supreme Court (1974) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court amends Criminal Procedure Rule 3.131(b) to extend the preliminary hearing deadline from 72 hours to 96 hours for non-capital offenses when a defendant is in custody. The amendment aims to give state attorneys adequate time to investigate and determine whether sufficient evidence exists beyond a reasonable doubt before filing charges, thereby reducing the filing of charges against innocent persons.


Holding

Rule 3.131(b) is amended to extend the preliminary hearing deadline to 96 hours for non-capital offenses and seven days for capital offenses or offenses punishable by life imprisonment. If charges are not filed or the preliminary hearing is not held within the specified time, the court shall release the defendant on a personal surety bond without additional surety.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant in custody, charged with a non-capital offense, is entitled to a preliminary hearing within 96 hours of their first appearance.

[2] For capital offenses and offenses punishable by life imprisonment, a preliminary hearing must be held within seven days of the defendant's first appearance.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“Before filing an information every state attorney should not only seek probable cause in his investigation, but also determine the possibility of proving the case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.”

Establishes the standard state attorneys must apply before filing charges—they must assess not just probable cause but ultimate provability beyond reasonable doubt.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Under the existing rule, every defendant charged with a non-capital offense in custody was entitled to a preliminary hearing within 72 hours. State at…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Under the present Rules of Criminal Procedure, every defendant charged with a non-capital offense is entitled to a preliminary hearing within 72 hours if he is in custody. The purpose of this provision was to speed the filing of information and thereby require the state attorney to determine, within 72 hours, whether a defendant will be prosecuted or should be released.

Before filing an information every state attorney should not only seek probable •cause in his investigation, but also determine the possibility of proving the case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. If the latter cannot be accomplished, no information should be filed and the defendant should be released. The rule requiring this determination within 72 hours will result in the filing of some cases in -which the state attorneys do not have a firm belief as to the integrity of the charge, or the state attorneys will be required to invoke a complete preliminary hearing system, with all its attendant costs and burdens upon the judicial system as well as the people of the state.

The state attorneys have requested that this rule be amended so that they will be allowed the period of 96 hours within which to complete their investigation of the case and determine whether to file an information or dismiss the charge. If the time is extended to 96 hours, the number of cases in which no information is filed will be increased and the number of cases in which a nolle prosequi of an information is entered will be reduced. The amendment will prevent charges from being filed against innocent people in cases where the state objectively could not prove the charges brought by the investigating law enforcement agency.

In an effort to expedite the dismissal of unwarranted charges brought against innocent citizens and in an effort to facilitate the operation of the criminal justice system with least inconvenience to the citizen, Rule 3.131(b) 33 F.S.A. is hereby amended so that the same shall read as follows:

RULE 3.131 PRELIMINARY HEARING * * * * * *

(b) In all cases where the defendant is in custody, except capital offenses or offenses punishable by life imprisonment, the preliminary hearing shall be held within 96 hours from the time of the defendant’s first appearance. In all capital offenses and offenses punishable by life imprisonment, the preliminary hearing shall be held within seven days of the time of the defendant’s first appearance. Should the charges as set forth in paragraph (a) of this rule not be filed, or the preliminary hearing as set forth in this paragraph not be held within the time period herein specified, then the court shall release the defendant on a personal surety bond, without the necessity of additional surety signing thereon, together with such other conditions as to the court may seem just and proper under the circumstances.

This rule shall take effect on March 1, 1974.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.

BOYD, J., dissents.

Dissent
ERVIN, Judge

ERVIN, Judge

(dissenting) :

This postponement by rule for yet another twenty-four hours (increasing the time to four days) within which preliminary hearings must be afforded uncharged suspects held in custody is yet another retreat from the modern view that deprivation of an accused’s liberty should not be unduly prolonged by the slowness of the prosecutorial machinery. Originally it was provided in the American Bar Association’s proposed Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice that the time of such detention in custody of accused felons for crimes . less than capital and misde-meanants should be only twenty-four hours.

This further extension of the time during which an accused may be held in custody for prosecutorial investigation — after the arresting officer has made the arrest— compounds an already undue length of time for state action. An accused is entitled to an expeditious determination of whether there is probable cause for charging him and holding him in further custody.

This modification is but another imposition upon poor people unable to secure bail upon arrest. It is a relaxive indication there is to be no incentive for speeding up of the state procedures for determining whether accuseds should be further detained. It is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution for early release of the innocent and the speedy charging and prosecution of the guilty.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Whitten v. State, 296 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
    …information, the State Attorney should not only seek probable cause but also determine the possibility of proving the case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. (In Re Rule 3.131(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Pro., Sup.Ct.Fla.1974, 289 So. 2d 3). As a corollary, it seems to me, the State Attorney should also determine the crime for which a defendant is to be charged. If the rule is construed in the manner that the Supreme Court construed the former statute in Washington, the State Attorney…
  • In re Castro, 43 Fla. Supp. 203 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1975)
    …f such crime.” (Emphasis supplied.) This authority simply construes a statute but, in addition, indicates the discretionary standard of the state attorney. In 1974, the Supreme Court, In re Rule 3.131 (b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fla., 289 So. 2d 3, admonished that — “Before filing an information every state attorney should not only seek probable cause in his investigation, but also determine the possibility of proving the case beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. If the lat…
  • State v. Romano, 300 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
    …from the time of the defendant’s first appearance, or else be released from custody on a personal surety bond. Appellees further cite the Florida Supreme Court’s per curiam opinion In re Rule 3.131(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fla.1974, 289 So. 2d 3. Therein, the court stated that the purpose of Rule 3.131(b) was to speed the filing of an information by requiring the state attorney to expedite his investigations not only as to whether there is probable cause, but also into the possibility of pr…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw