State v. McPhadder, AV-419
| Decision Date | 03 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. AV-419,AV-419 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Clyde McPHADDER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
The state appeals the trial court's order striking statements made by an informant, Mae Campbell, on electronic recordings taped during three purported drug transactions in which appellee allegedly was present, on the ground that, due to her unavailability, informant Campbell would not be called as a witness by the state to testify at trial. We reverse.
We first address a jurisdictional question raised by appellee. Contrary to the contention of appellee, we find that pursuant to rule 9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the state has properly raised its issue by appeal at this time. To preclude the state from bringing this appeal would undermine the rationale for the rule since the state would be unable to raise the question after trial if a verdict was entered in favor of appellee. The rule provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Appeals permitted. The state may appeal an order:
(A) * * *
(B) Suppressing before trial confessions, admissions or evidence obtained by search and seizure;
* * * (Emphasis supplied)
Although the question on appeal is not one involving a search and seizure issue, the evidence which was the subject of the order appealed was "obtained by search and seizure" and was suppressed before trial. Therefore, despite the procedural treatment of a similar appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari by our sister court in State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we find this question reviewable on direct appeal pursuant to rule 9.140(c)(1)(B).
Addressing the merits of the issue on appeal, the record indicates that prior to trial appellee moved to exclude the taped statements of Ms. Campbell on the ground that her statements are inadmissible hearsay since she will be unavailable at trial. However, the record shows that Ms. Campbell's statements were not being offered by the state to prove the truth of the matters she asserted thereon, but instead her statements were being presented into evidence for the purpose of showing that appellee engaged in the conversation with Ms. Campbell and took part in plans to supply illegal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brea
...which was the subject of the order appealed was obtained by search and seizure and was suppressed before trial. State v. McPhadder, 452 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). This Court quashed the decision of the district court, stating that we did "not agree that the evidence was obtained ......
-
State v. Brea
...question certified. 1 State v. Palmore, 495 So.2d 1170 (Fla.1986), refers to the First District decision in State v. McPhadder, 452 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), as being overruled on other grounds by McPhadder v. State, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla.1985). Since it does not clearly appear what tho......
-
State v. Arriagada
...courts should apply a broad interpretation of the appellate rule in accordance with the reasoning employed in State v. McPhadder, 452 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 475 So.2d 1215 (Fla.1985), and State v. Segura, 378 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA The order before us suppr......
-
State v. Katiba
...Moreover, in its recent Palmore decision, the supreme court expressly approved the district court's reasoning in State v. McPhadder, 452 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), wherein the district court found that an order suppressing evidence obtained by search and seizure was appealable under Ru......