State v. Wood, 73--1179
| Decision Date | 16 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1179,73--1179 |
| Citation | 299 So.2d 111 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Verna WOOD, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Abbott M. Herring, State's Atty., and W. J. Heffernan, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., Sanford, for appellant.
Emmett A. Moran, Orlando, for appellee.
Verna Wood was charged with perjury. She moved to dismiss the information. The trial court granted the motion. The state appeals. We reverse with directions to reinstate the information.
Narrowly addressing ourselves to the dispositive issue contained in appellate Point I:
The Defendant's filing of a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 3.190(c)(4) should be denied as a matter of law when the State in response files a Traverse pursuant to 3.190(d) wherein a material fact is denied under oath,
we notice that the defendant's motion to dismiss contained and vouched for this material fact allegation:
'That at no time did the State Attorney withdraw their agreement of immunity and pursuant to Florida Statutes 914.04 all testimony is inadmissible against Defendant on charge of perjury.'
The proper traverse of the state denied the above allegation.
The clear and controlling language of Rule 3.190(d), F.R.Cr.P., is as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
This rule mandates that the defendant's motion be denied. See generally State v. Giesy, 243 So.2d 635 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1971).
We do not understand that the motion and traverse practice as contained in the mentioned rule authorizes a mini or preliminary trial upon the merits.
The issue is simply whether the indictment or information should be dismissed. It is decided as suggested by the rule by determining if a material fact in the motion is traversed by the state. Since it was here, the information should not have been dismissed.
We reverse and remand with respectful instructions to reinstate the information.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carda, 85-1858
...State v. Fetherolf, 388 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); State v. Bryant, 373 So.2d 708, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); State v. Wood, 299 So.2d 111, 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). So long as the state demonstrates the slightest case against the defendant, it must be allowed to proceed. If the defendan......
-
State v. Boom, 85-1350
...So.2d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State v. Cook, 354 So.2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 359 So.2d 1212 (Fla.1978); State v. Wood, 299 So.2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In this case, the state's sworn traverse presented additional facts upon which it hoped to prove that appellee intended to ......
-
Michalek v. Shumate, 86-2085
... ... Petitte affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the injured parties' complaint for failure to state a cause of action against the automobile owner. The Petitte court refused to distinguish Fry on ... ...
-
State v. Huggins, KK-487
...nor a dry run of a trial on the merits, nor is it supposed to serve as a 'fishing expedition.' " As the Court stated in State v. Wood, 299 So.2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), if a material fact in the motion is traversed by the State the information should not be The trial court could have and s......