State v. Schwartz, 92-02154
| Decision Date | 09 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-02154,92-02154 |
| Citation | 605 So.2d 1000 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2322 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jeremy SCHWARTZ, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bill James, State Atty., and Edward L. Kainen, Asst. State Atty., Tampa, for petitioner.
Richard Escobar, Richard Escobar, P.A., Tampa, for respondent.
The petitioner, the State of Florida, seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order which excludes the testimony of a state witness at the criminal trial of the respondent, Jeremy Schwartz. We agree with the petitioner that the order departs from the essential requirements of law and so grant the petition.
The respondent was charged by information with delivery of cannabis and possession of cannabis. After the circuit court's denial of the respondent's motion to dismiss the charges filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), the petitioner filed an Amended Notice of Discovery. The Amended Notice listed the name and post office box number of the confidential informant involved in the case, an essential witness as the defense was presenting an entrapment defense.
On the morning of trial, the respondent argued a motion for sanctions against the petitioner for discovery violations. Specifically, the respondent argued that the post office address provided for the confidential informant was insufficient. The assistant state attorney acknowledged to the circuit court that while he had available both a street and post office address for the witness, he had intentionally decided to provide only the post office address to the respondent. On those grounds, the trial court granted the motion for sanctions and excluded the testimony of the witness.
As stated in Austin v. State, 461 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984),
In a system in which the search for truth is the principal goal, the severe sanction of witness exclusion for failure to timely comply with the rules of procedure should be a last resort and reserved for extreme or aggravated circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts and the testimony is not cumulative.
We first note that the sanctions were imposed for a violation of the discovery rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 and not for the violation of a court order compelling discovery. Prior to the order excluding the witness, the court had not entered any orders directed to the petitioner to provide additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sowers, 1D99-939.
...the State were seeking common-law certiorari relief. See, e.g., State v. Bradford, 658 So.2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Schwartz, 605 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); State v. Filipowich, 528 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA To be entitled to certiorari relief, the State must demonstrate that th......
-
State v. Davis, 2D03-731.
...extreme or aggravated circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts." State v. Schwartz, 605 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (quoting Austin v. State, 461 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)). Adherence to this standard is particularly impo......
-
State v. Eaton, 2D03-2054.
...evidence, however, should be used only as a last resort. Livigni v. State, 725 So.2d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. Schwartz, 605 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wilkerson v. State, 461 So.2d 1376, 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). "Relevant evidence should not be excluded from the jury unl......
-
Neer v. State
... ... State v. Davis, 857 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA ... 2003) (quoting State v. Schwartz, 605 So.2d 1000, ... 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). When the excluded witness is ... critical to prove the defense, "[a]dherence to this ... ...