State v. Ostergard, s. 51521
| Decision Date | 08 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | 51534,Nos. 51521,s. 51521 |
| Citation | 360 So.2d 414 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Donald OSTERGARD et al., Respondents. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Carlos GUTIERREZ et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Two Writs of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third district.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Linda Collins Hertz and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
Walter E. Gwinn, Miami, J. Victor Africano, Live Oak, Yale T. Freeman of Hirschhorn & Freeman, Miami, Geoffrey C. Fleck of Kogen & Kogan, Miami, and W. Stephen Arnovitz of the Law Offices of Burns & Arnovitz, Miami Beach, for respondents.
The writs of certiorari were granted to review the decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in State v. Gutierrez, 344 So.2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and State v. Ostergard, 343 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), because of apparent conflict with State v. Barnett, 339 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). We have recently disapproved the decision of the District Court of Appeal in Barnett and concurred with the decision and rationale of the District Court in Ostergard. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978). Having dispelled the conflict, we discharge the writs heretofore issued.
It is so ordered.
In my opinion the decisions of the district courts of appeal were erroneous, however, the majority of the court concurred in McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978) filed March 31, 1978, and took a contrary view.
The presiding judge of the statewide grand jury controls the exercise of its jurisdiction, governed by the statute, as well as the petition and empaneling order. The statewide grand jury is an arm of the presiding court.
The trial court is a separate and distinct court, the jurisdiction of which is determined by the nature of the crime charged (subject matter jurisdiction) and proper venue (territorial jurisdiction). The trial court does not have jurisdiction to make inquiry into the subject matter jurisdiction of the statewide grand jury.
We, in effect, have made "multi-county activity" a necessary element to be alleged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt in every criminal offense charged by a statewide grand jury indictment.
This step, giving a defendant additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...should facially indicate jurisdiction. State v. Ostergard , 343 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), writ discharged 360 So.2d 414, 414 (Fla.1978) (Adkins, J., concurring specially).The indictment in the case at bar did not even allege that the "grand jurors of ... Florida ... in ... Hernando Coun......
-
Klem v. Espejo-Norton, 3D06-3080.
...So.2d 763, 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See generally McGowin v. McGowin, 122 Fla. 394, 165 So. 274 (1936); State v. Ostergard, 360 So.2d 414, 414 (Fla.1978) (Adkins, J., concurring specially); 21 C.J.S. Courts § 112 (2006); 14D Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal P......
-
State v. Black, 54644
...should facially indicate jurisdiction. State v. Ostergard, 343 So.2d 874 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), writ discharged 360 So.2d 414, 414 (Fla.1978) (Adkins, J., concurring specially). The indictment in the case at bar did not even allege that the "grand jurors of . . . Florida . . . in . . . Hernando......
-
Ross v. State, 93-3493
...to prove the statewide grand jury's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, citing Justice Adkins' special concurrence in State v. Ostergard, 360 So.2d 414 (Fla.1978). That is not precisely what Justice Adkins wrote in his concurrence. Instead, he posited that the state must prove "multi-cou......