State v. Busciglio, 82-2633
| Decision Date | 09 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2633,82-2633 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Thomas F. BUSCIGLIO, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Gardner, State Atty., and James S. Purdy, Asst. State Atty., Bradenton, for petitioner.
Bernt Meyer, Sarasota, and Jerrel E. Towery of Barber & Towery, P.A., Venice, for respondent.
The state brings this petition for writ of certiorari to review an order granting a motion in limine.
Respondent/defendant was charged with robbery and burglary. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216, he filed a motion to declare himself insane at the time of trial. The court appointed psychiatrists, and the defendant underwent various examinations. The defendant then filed an admission of the facts alleged in the information with the exception that due to his insanity at the time of the offense, he was unable to form the intent necessary to commit the crimes charged.
Following a hearing on the motion in limine, the court entered an order acknowledging the state's refusal to stipulate to the defendant's admissions but which held in pertinent part:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the State of Florida shall be barred from presenting to a jury its full proof of the crimes charged against the Defendant in the second amended information and that the trial in this cause shall be limited to the issue of the Defendant's sanity at the time of the commission of the crimes charged; it is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the presentation of evidence before the jury shall commence with presentation of the Defendant's expert witnesses who will testify regarding the Defendant's sanity followed thereafter by the State of Florida's rebuttal witnesses who will testify on the issue of the Defendant's sanity at the time of the offense charged.
Certiorari is a proper remedy for the state to obtain review of pretrial rulings excluding or admitting evidence, where such rulings are legally erroneous and no remedy will be available to the state upon appeal from a final disposition of the case. State v. Horvatch, 413 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The state contends that the court erred in limiting the evidence to the defendant's insanity, thereby "sanitizing" the state's case.
In Arrington v. State, 233 So.2d 634 (Fla.1970), our supreme court pointed out that criminal defendants often seek to stipulate to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pettis
...law. E.g., State v. Edwards, 490 So.2d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Maisto, 427 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Busciglio, 426 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State v. Joseph, 419 So.2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Horvatch, 413 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Love, ......
-
State v. Veilleux
...remedy. Trepal v. State, 754 So.2d 702, 705 (Fla.2000); State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 252-53 (Fla.1988); State v. Busciglio, 426 So.2d 1233, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The State also must demonstrate that the trial court's departure resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Ivey v. Allstate Ins......
-
State v. Martinez, 2D02-5532.
...requirements of the law. Trepal v. State, 754 So.2d 702 (Fla.2000); State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988); State v. Busciglio, 426 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). "A petition for writ of certiorari can only be properly granted when the trial court's ruling departed from the essential req......
-
State v. Haynes, 83-1255
...legally erroneous, and no remedy will be available to the state upon appeal from a final disposition of the case. See State v. Busciglio, 426 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The order of the trial court is QUASHED. Petition for writ of certiorari HOBSON, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur. ...