Domville v. State
125 So. 3d 178, 2013 WL 163429, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 595
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 16, 2013·No. No. 4D12-556·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinions
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
We deny the motion for rehearing but grant the motion for certification. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v), we certify the following to be a question of great public importance:
Where the presiding judge in a criminal case has accepted the prosecutor assigned to the case as a Facebook “Mend,” would a reasonably prudent person fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial, so that the defendant’s motion for disqualification should be granted?
GROSS, J. concurs specially with opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Domville v. State, 125 So. 3d 178, 2013 WL 163429, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 595 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
125 So. 3d 178 (Domville v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A., etc. v. United Services Automobile Association
271 So. 3d 889 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)