State v. Gonzalez Rodriguez, 85-9
Decision Date | 18 February 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85-9,85-9 |
Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 467,483 So.2d 807 |
Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 467 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Rafael GONZALEZ RODRIGUEZ and Amelia Tania Coccera, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Jacki B. Geartner and Steven Scott, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Bierman, Sonnett, Shohat & Sale and Ira N. Loewy, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
The defendants-appellees were charged with trafficking arising out of a "reverse-sting" operation in which they were apprehended while purchasing five kilos of cocaine from undercover police officers. The trial court dismissed the information as a sanction for the state's failure to make a DEA-confidential informant file available to the court for in-camera inspection. 1 This order was palpably incorrect.
1 The c.i. in question had apparently introduced the parties but was not involved in the transaction itself and was not a potential witness for the state. Hence, there was no initial obligation for the prosecution even to disclose her name. State v. Mesa, 395 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Nevertheless, the defense discovered her identity on its own and thereafter deposed both her and her "supervising" DEA agent at great length concerning her connection with the case and the relationship, including specifics as to the financial arrangements, between the c.i. and the DEA. The alleged purpose of the requested inspection of the DEA file itself, which the agent resisted in accordance with DEA policy as embodied in 28 CFR § 16.22 (1984), was to determine if there was a written contract between the c.i. and the DEA, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Manderville, 86-440
...a criminal case for violation of court orders is a drastic sanction which should be employed only as a last resort. See State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 492 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1986); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (F......
-
State v. Panice
...So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Assuming that they did, dismissal was a wholly inappropriate and excessive sanction. State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984). The final order u......
-
Caplan v. State
...no obligation to produce the reports and thus committed no discovery violation by failing to produce them. See State v. Gonzalez Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). State v. Tascarella, 580 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1991), on which the defense relies, is distinguishable. There the state list......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...1334 Rodriguez (Rafael Gonzalez), Coccera (Amelia Tania) v. State NO. 68,628 Supreme Court of Florida. JUL 10, 1986 Appeal From: 3d DCA 483 So.2d 807 Rev. ...