Epstein v. People of State of N. Y.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation157 So.2d 705
Docket NumberNo. 63-149,63-149
PartiesRoselyn EPSTEIN, Appellant, v. The PEOPLE OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellee.
Decision Date12 November 1963

Sibley, Grusmark, Giblin, King & Levenson, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Herbert P. Benn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.

Before CARROLL, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final order compelling attendance of a witness under the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. Chapter 942, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellant is the witness whose return to the State of New York has been sought by that State for the express purpose of securing her testimony before a Grand Jury. The circuit judge received the certificate of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York stating, in part, as follows:

* * *

* * *

'ROSALYN EPSTEIN, now a resident of the State of Florida, is a material and necessary witness to this Grand Jury investigation and is expected to testify to matters which are material to the said proceeding and the attendance and giving of testimony to the Grand Jury in the State of New York will not cause undue hardship to the said ROSALYN EPSTEIN.

'The presence of ROSALYN EPSTEIN will be required before the Fourth December, 1962 Grand Jury of the County of New York on March 18, 19, 20, 21, 1963 at 1:30 p. m.'

* * *

* * *

Pursuant to this certificate and an attached affidavit of Jeremiah B. McKenna, an Assistant District Attorney in the County of New York, State of New York, the circuit judge conducted the hearing required by the Act; and at the conclusion thereof, entered the order which is now appealed.

The appellant has presented five points upon appeal contending that if the circuit judge had correctly applied the law, she would not be required to attend under the Act. In her first point, the appellant urges that the Dade County circuit court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings because the Act provides for the '* * * presentation of such certificate to any judge of a court of record in the county in which such person is * * *.' It is argued that since in this county there ate judges of courts of record other than judges of the circuit court, that court does not have jurisdiction under the Constitution of the State of Florida, art. 5, § 6(3), F.S.A., which states that the jurisdiction of the circuit court is exclusive '* * * in all cases at law not cognizable by subordinate courts * * *.' We think this argument must fail because the same section of the State Constitution provides that the circuit court shall have original jurisdiction '* * * of such other matters as the legislature may provide.' As has been pointed out above, § 942.02(1) provides for the presentation of an appropriate certificate to any judge of a court of record in the county in which such person is. It, therefore, follows that the legislature by such provision expressly conferred jurisdiction upon the circuit courts to hear the matter involved.

The second point presented by appellant challenges the sufficiency of the certificate because it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts. Since the certificate is in the words of the statute, we think that it is sufficient. It is usual for certificates of this type to follow the statute; [See In re Pitman, 26 Misc.2d 332, 201 N.Y.S.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Com. v. Beneficial Finance Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 4 Noviembre 1971
    ...even if it is an aid to a separate criminal proceeding, is not necessarily itself criminal in nature. Epstein v. People of State of New York, 157 So.2d 705, 707 (D.Ct.App.Fla.), which held that a Florida proceeding under the Uniform Witness Act, based on the certificate of a New York judge,......
  • Tracy v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 23 Abril 1991
    ...prosecutions, the proceedings to compel attendance of a witness under the Uniform Act are not criminal in nature. Epstein v. New York, 157 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.App.1963). In addition, the Uniform Act does not extend the criminal jurisdiction of the requesting jurisdiction beyond its boundari......
  • In re Issuance of a Summons Compelling, 28263
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 2018
    ...on Uniform State Laws in 1936. They cite cases from other jurisdictions which have adopted the same. See Epstein v. People ex rel. N.Y. , 157 So.2d 705, 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963) (finding no abuse of discretion in a state court’s decision to compel attendance of witness in a sister sta......
  • Rhode Island Grand Jury Subpoena, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 8 Enero 1993
    ...In re Cooper, 127 N.J.L. 312, 22 A.2d 532 (1941); Ex parte Armes, 582 S.W.2d 434, 439 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). Accord Epstein v. New York, 157 So.2d 705, 707 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963). These courts concluded that the Uniform Act's purpose is to eliminate the jurisdictional restraints that impede t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT