State v. Rodriguez, 85-373
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 288,483 So.2d 751 |
| Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-373,85-373 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 288 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Eugenio RODRIGUEZ, Carlos I. Estrada, Rolando Fernandez, Aurelio Cicard, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, Nathan and Williams and Douglas Williams, Moore & Rabin, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
The state appeals an order dismissing the information against the defendants. We reverse. The state does not have an obligation to produce witnesses for deposition. State v. Valdes, 443 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Once the state revealed the name and address of the informant, it fulfilled its obligation. Consequently, there was no discovery violation and the imposition of a sanction against the state, in this case dismissal of the information, was erroneous. Valdes.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boykins
...also State v. Gorrio, 726 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ; State v. Cecil, 533 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) ; State v. Rodriguez, 483 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ; State v. Jackson, 436 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) ; State v. Adderly, 411 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ; State v. Ban......
- Cenvill Investors, Inc. v. Columbus, 85-813