SHEILA E. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 Fourth District reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that when a trial court improperly delegates to the jury its duty to determine the lawfulness of a search and seizure, the defendant is entitled to a new trial rather than merely a post-trial hearing on probable cause.
A trial court's delegation to the jury of its duty to determine whether a search and seizure was lawful requires reversal and a new trial, not merely a post-trial hearing on probable cause.
[1] When a trial court improperly delegates to the jury its duty to determine the lawfulness of a search and seizure, the defendant is entitled to a new trial rather than a p…
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 intelligence“a new trial is necessary if a trial court delegates to the jury the court's duty to determine whether a search and seizure was lawful”
Court explaining that post-trial hearing procedure is inadequate to protect accused's rights
Sheila E. Brown was arrested and searched. The trial court had previously been directed to make written findings on probable cause but instead found p…
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 Constitutional Rights Of Accused cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
In a previous opinion1 we remanded this cause to the trial court with directions to make written findings as to whether or not there was probable cause to arrest appellant, Sheila E. Brown, and conduct a search of her person. Following these directions, the trial court entered an order finding that probable cause existed. By way of supplemental brief appellant has persuaded us that the foregoing procedure we ordered was incorrect and that appellant was entitled to a new trial rather than a further proceeding to determine probable cause. The reasons set forth in Land v. State, 293 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1974) that led the court to conclude that a new trial was necessary if a trial court failed to specifically find a confession voluntary before submitting it to a jury also lead to a conclusion that a new trial is necessary if a trial court delegates to the jury the court’s duty to determine whether a search and seizure was lawful. Therefore, though a remand for a posttrial hearing to determine probable cause appears to be an expeditious way of remedying the error, the Supreme Court has indicated that such a procedure is inadequate to protect the rights of an accused.
Accordingly, we reluctantly reverse the judgment and sentence appealed and remand the cause for a de novo hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress, if the appellant seeks such a hearing, and a new trial.
DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur. . Brown v. State, 352 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Land v. State, 293 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1974)
- Brown v. State, 352 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)