THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EUTANSIO ANTOLIN ROIG, 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 appellate court reversed the dismissal of a lewd and lascivious assault charge, holding that the prosecution is not responsible for producing state witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant for discovery purposes.
The prosecution is not responsible for producing state witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant for discovery deposition purposes.
[1] The prosecution is not responsible for producing state witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant for discovery deposition purposes, and a trial court errs in excluding such t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoig was charged with making a lewd and lascivious or indecent assault upon a male minor under fourteen years old. The trial court excluded testimony …
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 Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
Appellant, The State of Florida, appeals an order of the trial court dismissing an information charging the defendant, Roig, with making a lewd and lascivious or indecent assault upon a male minor under the age of fourteen years.
The information was filed on February 11, 1974. On April IS, 1974, the trial court entered an order excluding the testimony of five witnesses for the prosecution because they failed to appear for deposition after being subpoenaed by the defendant. On May 15, 1974, the court entered an order dismissing the information because the prosecution was unable to proceed without the testimony of the witnesses whose testimony had been excluded. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the witnesses were made unavailable by the prosecution to the prejudice of the defendant.
The sole question before this court is whether the prosecution is responsible to produce the state’s witnesses for deposition pursuant to being subpoenaed by the defendant. We hold that it is not the responsibility of the state to produce state witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant for discovery purposes. Therefore, the court erred in excluding the witnesses’ testimony and dismissing the cause as a result thereof. Proper sanctions may be imposed by the court pursuant to appropriate rules of procedure. See State v. DeVille, Fla.App.1972, 258 So. 2d 492; Rule 3.220, CrPR; Rule 1.380, RCP. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…incrimination grounds was not a discovery violation); State v. Ashley, 393 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (dismissal improper where State fails to produce out-of-state witness for deposition, since State under no obligation to do so); State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (exclusion of testimony of certain witnesses and dismissal of information improper where witnesses listed by State fail to appear for defense deposition where no indication that non-appearance procured by State); Mason v. State, 3…
-
State v. Brown, 527 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…to conveniently depose them before the trial. Neither of these factors makes out a violation by the state of any discovery rule. See State v. Valdez, 443 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Mesa, 395 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Second, and perhaps more important, the circumstances were not shown, as required, to have substantially and adversely affected the defendant in her preparation for trial. There was no indication whatever that any of these witnes…
-
State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. The Honorable N. Joseph Durant, Jr., 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…produce state witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant for discovery purposes. To order the state to do so, or to dismiss a criminal case for failure of the state to do so, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. State v. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The trial court has inherent authority, however, to grant a continuance to a defendant when through no fault of his own he has been unable to depose witnesses listed on the state’s witness list prior to trial. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.19…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DeVILLE, 258 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)