State v. Lyons
| Citation | 293 So.2d 391 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--728,73--728 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Vicky A. LYONS, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
John A. Henninger, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
So far the trial judge has had no opportunity to find out what this case is all about. Rule 3.190(h)(3), 33 F.S.A., has been amended to read as follows:
The trial judge took this to mean that the burden of proof had been shifted to the defendant and held the rule unconstitutional. The State, which presumably appeared at the hearing with officers who had taken the time from other duties to testify concerning the allegedly invalid search, declined to play by the trial judge's rules and took this interlocutory appeal. We consider first a 'Motion for Transfer Due to Lack of Jurisdiction' filed after oral argument.
The first paragraph of the motion reads:
'Upon reading and examining the NOTICE OF RELIANCE FILED in this cause and received by the under signed on January 21, 1974, it has been discovered that when the constitutionality of a rule of criminal procedure is challenged, the jurisdiction is apparently in the Supreme Court of Florida, State v. Lott (286 So.2d 565) (FSC1973), filed December 5, 1973.'
The best evidence of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is the Florida Constitution, Article V, § 3, F.S.A., which reads in part:
'The Supreme Court:
(1) Shall hear appeals from final judgments of trial courts imposing the death penalty and from orders of trial courts and decisions of district courts of appeal initially and directly passing on the validity of a state statute or a federal statute or treaty, or construing a provision of the state or federal constitution.
(3) May review by certiorari any decision of a district court of appeal that affects a class of constitutional or state officers, that passes upon a question certified by a district court of appeal to be of great public interest, or that is in direct conflict with a decision of any district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same question of law, and any interlocutory order passing upon a matter which upon final judgment would be directly appealable to the supreme court; and may issue writs of certiorari to commissions established by general law having statewide jurisdiction.'
Although not expressly stated, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in State v. Lott, Supra, appeared to rest upon the trial court's construction of the equal protection clause. Certainly a rule of criminal procedure is not 'a state statute or a federal statute or treaty,' so we must assume that the trial court in Lott was 'construing a provision of the state or federal constitution.' There is a difference between Construing a constitutional provision and the Application of settled principle to the case at hand. 1 The question now before us is one on which there is an abundance of federal authority, none of which was inflicted on the trial judge or, for that matter, on this court. Consequently, because the trial court did not pass on the validity of a state statute or federal statute or treaty, we must consider whether the Misapplication of settled constitutional doctrine amounts to a construction of the constitution. We think it does not.
The second ground of the motion to transfer states:
Even if the rule is in conflict with Earman v. State, the Supreme Court has a perfect right to adopt a rule at variance from its own precedents. It is given that right by Article V, § 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, and even if the rule is in conflict with a prior decision of the Supreme Court, no ground for certiorari under Fla.Const. Article V, § 3(b)(3) appears. Consequently, we deny the motion to transfer due to lack of jurisdiction.
We think that the interpretation of Federal Rule 41 is pertinent here. 2 8A Moore, Federal Practice § 41.08(4) states:
'The burden is on the moving party, i.e., the defendant, to prove that the search was invalid; however, if it is established that the search was made without a warrant, the burden shifts to the government to produce 'clear and convincing evidence' that the warrantless search meets constitutional requirements.'
Thus what is required of the defendant is an initial showing of the search's invalidity, whereupon the burden of going forward shifts to the state. 3 Two aspects of the rule would require, first of all, a pleading sufficient within itself to allege an unlawful search, and secondly, at the hearing, a Prima facie showing of invalidity. The Fifth Amendment question seems to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Filmon v. State
...hearing that the challenged evidence had been obtained lawfully. All an accused need do is make an 'initial showing,' State v. Lyons, 293 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla.App.2nd, 1974) of standing to challenge the legality of a search, and the 'ultimate burden of proof as to the validity of a warrantle......
-
Morales v. State, s. 80-248
...DCA 1977); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Bicking v. State, 293 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); State v. Lyons, 293 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Mann v. State, 292 So.2d 432 (Fla. 2d DCA Ordinarily, we would have no problem in concluding on this record that the def......
-
State v. Setzler
...grounds for suppression. In the absence of a warrant, however, the defense need make only an "initial showing," State v. Lyons, 293 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) at the suppression hearing. Williams v. State, 640 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Fortesa-Ruiz, 559 So.2d 1180, 1181......
-
Pilieci v. State
...his motion to suppress, he had the burden of proof because the evidence had been seized pursuant to a warrant. See State v. Lyons, 293 So.2d 391, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). He argued that the warrant was issued without probable cause and as a result of material omissions within the affidavit. ......