State v. Adderly, 81-1665
| Decision Date | 30 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1665,81-1665 |
| Citation | 411 So.2d 981 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Zeb ADDERLY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calianne P. Lantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Michael J. Korvick, John H. Lipinski, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, and FERGUSON, JJ.
Adderly was charged by information with aggravated assault and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. He moved to dismiss, by unsworn motion, on the grounds that the state would be unable to prove all the essential elements of the offenses because the victim had since died from unrelated causes. The sufficiency of the charging instrument is not challenged.
A motion to dismiss an information on grounds that there are no material issues of fact and the undisputed facts which the state will present do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant must conform to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) requiring that the facts be specifically alleged and the motion sworn to. See State v. Davis, 243 So.2d 587 (Fla.1971); State v. Brooks, 388 So.2d 1291 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
Having determined that Adderly's motion could have been made only pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), supra, we hold that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because, (1) the motion lacked specific factual allegations and (2) the motion was not sworn to by the defendant. 1 State v. Aaron, 409 So.2d 1214 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); State v. Holder, 400 So.2d 162 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).
Adderly also moved to dismiss on grounds that three police officers failed to appear for deposition. We have repeatedly held that the state is not obliged, at pain of dismissal, to produce witnesses for deposition. State v. Mesa, 395 So.2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); State ex rel. Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So.2d 405 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
1 We assume that the defendant's motion was based on a perceived inability of the state to prove that the victim was in fear of imminent violence-an essential element of assault. Though unnecessary to a disposition of this appeal, we note that fear of imminent violence may be inferred by the finder of fact from all the circumstances and all inferences on a motion to dismiss are to be resolved against the defendant. As a matter of law Adderly would not, on this record, have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carda, 85-1858
...in granting the defendant's motion after the state was unable or unwilling to produce the police officers. See State v. Adderly, 411 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (defendant not entitled to dismissal on ground that three police officers failed to appear for deposition); State v. Merritt, 394......
-
State v. Boykins
...1988) ; State v. Rodriguez, 483 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ; State v. Jackson, 436 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ; State v. Adderly, 411 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ; State v. Banks, 349 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (disapproved on other grounds by Colby v. McNeill, 595 So. 2d 115 (Fl......
-
State v. Mitchum, Case Nos. 5D16-3214, 5D16-3215, 5D16-3217, 5D16-3218, 5D16-3219.
...388 So.2d 1291, 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) )); State v. Hernandez, 573 So.2d 1037, 1037 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citing State v. Adderly, 411 So.2d 981, 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ...
-
State v. Filipowich, 87-1355
...no basis for excluding the witness' testimony at trial. State v. Jackson, 436 So.2d 985, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see State v. Adderly, 411 So.2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Knight v. State, 373 So.2d 52, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 761 (Fla.1980); see also State v. Mesa, 395......