STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARENCE SMITH, 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 court held that dismissal of charges was an improper sanction without evidence that the missing tape contained exculpatory material favorable to the defendant.
Defendants were charged with drug offenses, and a tape recording of the transaction was lost by the state. The trial court dismissed the charges based…
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 Brady Material cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Clarence Smith and John Robinson were charged with possession and sale of heroin. The charges arose out of a purported drug sale to an undercover agent. A tape recording was made of the transaction, but was subsequently misplaced by the state. Robinson moved for dismissal of the charges against him, alleging the tape contained material that would be favorable to his defense, with which the state agreed. Smith was allowed to join in the motion at the hearing on the matter. The trial court dismissed the charges against both defendants on the basis of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Farrell v. State, 317 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
The state filed this appeal alleging that it was error to dismiss the charges against appellees Smith and Robinson. The state has voluntarily dismissed its appeal as to Robinson.
The dismissal of the charges against a defendant under these circumstances is an extreme sanction that should only be utilized with caution after a great deal of deliberation. In the record there is no evidence that would demonstrate that the tape contained material favorable to appellee Smith.
Upon remand the trial court should take evidence to determine if the tape was indeed Brady material as to Smith. If it were, the court should make inquiry to determine the culpability of the state in misplacing the tape and then impose such sanctions, if any, the court deems just under the circumstances. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(j)(l).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Sobel, 363 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1978)…ALDERMAN, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, in Sobel v. State, 349 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977), which directly conflicts with State v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and Ludwick v. State, 336 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. The defendant, Robert Sobel, on a two-count information, was convicted of sale or deliv…1 / 3
-
State v. Cordia, 564 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…R, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur. . While the propriety of that ruling is not before us, we note that dismissal of charges under such circumstances is an extreme sanction which should be undertaken only as a last resort. State v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). . Ironically, Hardie's conviction was reversed on other grounds involving the identification procedure. By identifying themselves as police officers with prior knowledge of the accused, the state’s witnesses implied unrelated mi…
-
State v. Dane Montel Hamilton, 387 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…al judge with the lack of diligence of the state in preparing for trial, we believe that dismissal of an otherwise valid information is too extreme a sanction where there is no showing of prejudice or unfairness to the appellee. Cf., State v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 1094 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The court could have properly within its discretion denied the state’s motion for continuance. If the state was then unable to prove a prima facie case because of the unavailability of the witness, a directed verdict for the ap-pe…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Farrell v. State, 317 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)