State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 07 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2789,87-2789 |
| Citation | 539 So.2d 535,14 Fla. L. Weekly 625 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 625 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Willie JONES, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joni B. Braunstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ., and SCOTT, ROBERT C., Associate Judge.
The state appeals an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss due to the state's failure to sufficiently narrow the time frame in which the charges of sexual battery occurred. We reverse.
Defendant Willie Lee Jones was charged by information with two counts of sexual battery upon a five-year-old female, the child of his live-in lover. The information alleged that the incidents occurred between March 1986 and February 12, 1987. The state based the charges on the victim's allegations which first came to light when the child's teacher reported to authorities that the little girl had disclosed the sexual batteries to her. There also existed physical evidence of the violations consisting of several tears to the child's hymen.
At a hearing on the defendant's motion for a statement of particulars, defense counsel requested a more specific time period in which the alleged offenses took place. The state replied that it could not narrow the time frame any more than it had due to the fact that the victim, who was the sole eyewitness to the offenses, could state only that the incidents occurred "when she was five." As a result of that hearing, the trial court ruled that the state had fulfilled its legal responsibilities regarding a statement of particulars. Nevertheless, at a later hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss based on the state's failure to narrow the time frame, the court granted dismissal even though it specifically found that the state had acted in good faith and had alleged the dates of the offenses with as much particularity as possible. At that second hearing the court also declared the victim incompetent to testify. The state now appeals the dismissal of the sexual battery charges; however, it has not appealed the ruling finding the child incompetent to testify. 1
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(d)(3) requires that an information contain "allegations stating as definitely as possible the time and place of the commission of the offense charged...." Section (n) of that same rule requires that upon the defendant's motion for a statement of particulars, the state shall "specify as definitely as possible the place, date, and all other material facts of the crime charged" in order "sufficiently to enable [the defendant] to prepare his defense". The state contends that it has in good faith complied with these rules and that it was thus error to dismiss the complaint. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the information as it stands is inadequate to enable him to prepare a defense and that it exposes him to multiple jeopardy.
It is not necessary that the exact date of the offense be alleged in an information if that date is not known. It is sufficient to allege that the offense occurred within stated specific time limits. Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984); State v. Beamon, 298 So.2d 376 (Fla.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1124, 95 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975); Sparks v. State, 273 So.2d 74 (Fla.1973); State v. Bandi, 338 So.2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 323 (Fla.1977). "The reason for requiring a definite date is to show that the prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations." Sparks, 273 So.2d at 75.
A review of the case law involving the adequacy of the time frame alleged in an information shows that in evaluating the propriety of dismissal, courts have consistently focused on the efforts of the state to narrow the period pursuant to a statement of particulars. The cases generally hold that if the facts support the state's inability to further narrow the time frame and if the time frame as alleged is non-prejudicial to the defendant, the court will not dismiss the charges.
It is proper for the trial court to dismiss an information on the basis of time frame specificity when the state had the ability to be more specific but failed to do so. Two cases involving charges of sexual battery against young children are illustrative. In State v. Garcia, 511 So.2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), the second district held that charges of sexual battery upon a young child were properly dismissed where the state was found to have the ability to allege within a narrower time frame but did not. In that case, there was no finding by the trial court, as there was here, that the state was unable to more narrowly frame the time in which the offenses occurred. Similarly, in Knight v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kimbro v. State, F-88-575
...827 (4 Dept.1984); State v. Swallow, 350 N.W.2d 606 (S.D.1984); State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207, 768 P.2d 268 (1989); State v. Jones, 539 So.2d 535 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989). In considering the practicalities of this case, we find that the appellant is not exposed to double jeopardy. The double je......
-
State v. Dell'Orfano
...and meaningful efforts in seeking to attain specific dates...." Id. at 493. The court in Yzaguirre, relied, in part on State v. Jones, 539 So.2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Jones, the defendant was charged with two counts of sexual battery on a child over a one year period. The victim could ......
-
Pagan v. State, 90-2441
...on four of those offenses. On the facts of the present case, the information was sufficiently particularized. See State v. Jones, 539 So.2d 535, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Defendant seeks reversal on authority of Knight v. State, 506 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). That case, however, supports......
-
State v. Yzaguirre, 89-03484
...on the basis of time frame specificity when the state had the ability to be more specific but failed to do so." State v. Jones, 539 So.2d 535, 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In reaching our resolution of this matter, we are not unmindful that our supreme court has determined that "time is not ordi......