State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 12 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D08-5751.,2D08-5751. |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Torry M. JONES, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Torry M. JONES, Respondent.
No. 2D08-5751.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
March 12, 2010.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonya Roebuck Horbelt, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Respondent.
CASANUEVA, Chief Judge.
The State of Florida petitions this court for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's pretrial order excluding certain test results from evidence, as well as its subsequent order denying the State's motion for rehearing. Although the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, we dismiss the petition because the State failed to allege or prove that the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Facts and Procedural History
The State charged Torry M. Jones with sexual offenses against a child victim. At some point, urinalyses were undertaken on samples from Mr. Jones and the alleged victim. The defense filed a motion in limine to exclude any mention of the tests or their results from evidence, claiming that there was no chain of custody in place on the urine samples and that introduction of the test results without the testimony of those who created the results violated Mr. Jones's constitutional right to confrontation. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
The trial court held a hearing on the motion. Defense counsel argued that each of the two nurses who collected the urine samples had told him that "we don't do chain of custody on urine samples." He further argued that the identities of the lab technicians who tested the urine and created the reports were unknown and, therefore, the State could not introduce the reports. No witnesses testified; no documents were introduced into evidence. Without the introduction of any evidence, the trial court granted the motion on both bases. The State filed a motion for rehearing which was denied.
Standard of Review
The Supreme Court of Florida has held that "if the requirements permitting certiorari jurisdiction otherwise exist, a pre-trial order excluding evidence which has the effect of substantially impairing the ability of the state to prosecute its case is subject to certiorari review." State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla.1988) (quoting State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So.2d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)). Although a pretrial order may qualify for certiorari, the writ should be issued only when "there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Id. at 254 (quoting Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 96 (Fla.1983)).
State v. Davis, 857 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In other words, "to obtain common law certiorari relief, a petitioner must show that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law that causes material and irreparable harm." Gonzalez v. State, 15 So.3d 37, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
Analysis
The State contends that the trial court erred in granting the defense's motion
in limine without any evidence presented. Regarding the chain of custody issues, the State asserts that exclusion of evidence based solely upon an alleged break in the chain of custody, without evidence of a probability of tampering, was a departure from the essential requirements of law.
"Relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. State
...applicable case law." Horwitz v. State, 189 So.3d 800, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), approved, 191 So.3d 429 (Fla.2016). In State v. Jones, 30 So.3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the Second District explained the law applicable to claims of evidence tampering:[R]elevant physical evidence is admis......
-
770 PPR, LLC v. TJCV LAND TRUST
...also asserted that the borrowers were in default on the loans and demands for payment had been repeatedly ignored. Upon the presentation 30 So.3d 619 of the bank's motion for summary judgment and supporting affidavits, the borrowers had an opportunity to refute those amounts. See Walker v. ......
-
State v. Crumbley
...sustain an as-applied challenge. "A trial court may not rely on argument by counsel to make factual determinations." State v. Jones, 30 So.3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (first citing Ordonez v. State, 862 So.2d 927, 930 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; then citing State v. Thompson, 852 So.2d 877, 878......
-
Martin v. State, Case No. 5D15-284
...case law." Horowitz v. State, 189 So. 3d 800, 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), approved, 191 So. 3d 429 (Fla. 2016). In State v. Jones, 30 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), the Second District explained the law applicable to claims of evidence tampering:[R]elevant physical evidence is admissible ......
-
Appeals
...addressing the court’s error without specifying the harm or how it is irreparable make the petition legally insufficient. State v. Jones, 30 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (See Bennett v. State , 23 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) for extensive discussion of the scope of a District Court APPEA......
-
Evidence
...how the lab report came to be created. The court cannot rely on arguments of counsel to make factual determinations. State v. Jones, 30 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) The fellow officer rule does not operate to allow one officer to testify in a suppression hearing about what another officer ......