Dawson, 34 FLW 2294, 4th DCA, Richardson violation. Trial court erred in failing to conduct a complete hearing and failing to consider lesser sanctions, such as a continuance or a mistrial, before excluding defense rebuttal witness, where testimony was relevant and trial court found state was prejudiced because it was not given an opportunity to depose the witness and subpoena rebuttal witness or possibility of taking depo of defense witness before testifying. Application of three part test insufficient for a discovery violation as the court must consider a fourth factor and explore whether another reasonable alternative can be employed to overcome possible prejudice. Error not harmless in reversing first degree murder conviction where reasonable possibility that exclusion of witness contributed to the conviction.
Thompson, 34 FLW 2299, 4th DCA. Credit for time served - probation revocation. Def originally sentenced to concurrent terms for 2 counts, and trial court imposed consecutive sentences for those two counts after VOP. Def was entitled to credit for time served against both of the consecutive sentences. (see Rabedeau, 2 3rd 191(Fl. 2009))
L.C., 34 FLW 2306, 3rd DCA, search and seizure. It was unreasonable for police officer to perform a weapons search without having performed a pat-down of a 15 year old truant before putting her in the back of the police car to execute the ofc's statutory obligation to transport her to school where the officer had no basis to suspect the student of possessing any weapons. Absence of reasonable suspicion not justified in search just because ofc felt unsafe about his safety, nor could he do based on blanket department policy.
Ortiz, 34 FLW 2311, 5th DCA, (En banc) Reversed lower panel opinion now in favor the trial judge's finding of exigent circumstances (medical emergency exception) for warrant less search of home - for the state, distinguishes Riggs, 918 So. 2d 274(Fl. 2005).
Acevedo, 34 FLW 2322, 5th DCA, Miranda warning given to def was defective where def was told that he had a right to counsel but was not told he had a right to counsel both before being interrogated and during interrogation. Not harmless. Reasonable possibility it affected the verdict - State v. Powell, 998 So 2d 531(Fl. 2008) cert granted 129 S. Ct 2827(6-22-09)
Florida v. Simmons, 34 FLW 2352, 1st DCA, Trial court had the authority to dismiss the current charges against the def as a remedy for the state's refusal to comply with a settlement agreement under which it was agreed by the state, the def, and the victim of the crimes that def would be admitted to PTI and charge would be dismissed and victim would be paid restitution. (victim refused to sign the victim consent form after he was compensated)
Bailey, 34 FLW 2359, 1st DCA, Audio - recorded statement - Def statement to interrogating officers, not during Miranda warnings but during the statement, "Man, I don't rally want to talk about that", was not an unequivocal revocation of the prior waiver of the right to remain silent. Trial court id not err in admitting the audio-recorded statement
The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley, P.A.