Fridovich v. State
| Decision Date | 26 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 73921,73921 |
| Citation | 562 So.2d 328 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly S250 Edward Adam FRIDOVICH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Steven D. Merryday and Linda Julin McNamara of Glenn, Rasmussen, Fogarty, Merryday & Russo, Tampa, and Glen L. Brock, Lakeland, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Deborah Guller, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
We have for review Fridovich v. State, 537 So.2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified the following question to be of great public importance:
WHERE A PERSON CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE MURDER IS CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER, WHICH CONVICTION IS REVERSED FOR A NEW TRIAL DUE TO TRIAL ERRORS, AND UPON REMAND A NEW INFORMATION CHARGING MANSLAUGHTER IS FILED AND TIMELY PROSECUTED AND ALL PARTIES ARE FULLY AWARE THAT THE SAME CRIMINAL EPISODE IS INVOLVED, IS THE PROSECUTION OF THE SECOND INFORMATION A
Id. at 650. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court.
The facts of this case reflect that on December 4, 1981, Edward Adam Fridovich shot his father in the head with a shotgun, killing him. He was charged by indictment with first-degree murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Fridovich appealed his manslaughter conviction to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which reversed the conviction due to the trial court's erroneous refusal to allow a medical examiner to testify that the shooting was accidental. Fridovich v. State, 489 So.2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 496 So.2d 142 and 500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986). The district court remanded the case for a new trial and further proceedings by mandate issued August 1, 1986.
On September 18, 1986, the state filed an information entitled "Re-File Information for Manslaughter," charging Fridovich with the killing of his father. Prior to the second trial, the trial judge ruled that evidence would be restricted to that probative of manslaughter. At the second trial, the state's principal witness was a blood-splatter expert, who opined that the shot that killed Fridovich's father was fired from a distance of one inch or less. Fridovich objected to this testimony before it was presented, arguing that it was clearly "murder" evidence, but the trial court allowed the testimony. He then made a motion for a mistrial, which was denied.
At the instruction conference, Fridovich moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, claiming that the information on which he was tried was barred by the statute of limitations, section 775.15, Florida Statutes (1981). Fridovich contended that, because the information was filed four-and-one-half years after the alleged offense and contained no language linking it to the earlier, timely filed indictment, the action was barred. The trial judge denied the motion for acquittal, and the jury subsequently returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
On appeal, the district court noted that the refiled information charged the same defendant with the same crime of which he had originally been convicted and that it involved the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same dates. The court stated that Fridovich had not been prejudiced by this "continuation of the original prosecution," 537 So.2d at 650, and held that the statute of limitations was tolled by the filing of the original indictment and that it continued tolled throughout the prosecution under the refiled information. Id.
There is no rule or other authority which requires the state to file a new information upon remand for a new trial in these circumstances. Pursuant to the mandate of the district court, the state need file only a motion to set the case for trial with the trial court. The trial judge is then obligated to instruct the jury on the crime with which the defendant is charged and to set forth the charge in accordance with Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 1.01. The state is not required to file a new charging document setting forth the lesser included offense on which the defendant will be tried. There is no question that a new charging document would be helpful to the state, the defendant, the judge, and the jury and that it would lessen the possibility of the jury's knowing that the defendant was originally charged with first-degree murder. However, a new charging document was neither necessary nor jurisdictional in this case. The trial court had jurisdiction to try the offense of manslaughter without the refiled information and the state was not in any way changing the offense to be tried or abandoning the charge of manslaughter for this incident.
All parties recognize that, under Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 90 s.Ct. 1757, 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970), the state was prohibited from trying Fridovich on the original charge of first-degree murder and the retrial was limited by the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Florida constitutions to the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
Because the information was assigned a new case number rather than that of the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fridovich v. Fridovich
...in which he was tried for and again convicted of manslaughter. Fridovich v. State, 537 So.2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), approved 562 So.2d 328 (Fla.1990). Count I of the complaint alleged the publication of false and defamatory statements to the investigators for the Broward Sheriff's office,......
-
Guzman v. State
...the last information to link it with the first," the state is deemed to have abandoned the original information, see Fridovich v. State , 562 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla. 1990), and the amended information will be subject to the statute of limitations bar. The initial information did not charge an ......
-
Duffey v. State
...(deciding whether exclusion of medical examiner's opinion as to accidental nature of death would be prejudicial error), approved, 562 So.2d 328 (Fla.1990), the trial court sustained the defendant's objections and gave curative instructions. The error, if any, was not prejudicial. See § 924.......
-
State v. Guzman
...the last information to link it with the first," the state is deemed to have abandoned the original information, see Fridovich v. State, 562 So. 2d 328, 330 (Fla. 1990), and the amended information will be subject to the statute of limitations bar. The initial information [in this case] did......