Domville v. State
125 So. 3d 178, 2013 WL 163429, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 595
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 16, 2013
DocketNo. 4D12-556
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases
This text of 125 So. 3d 178 (Domville v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Domville v. State, 125 So. 3d 178, 2013 WL 163429, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 595 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).
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
Related
Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A., etc. v. United Services Automobile Association
271 So. 3d 889 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2018)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
125 So. 3d 178, 2013 WL 163429, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domville-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.