Glasserman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glasserman v. State

590 So. 2d 17, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11744, 1991 WL 248414

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 27, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2829

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 590 So. 2d 17 (Glasserman 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

Glasserman v. State, 590 So. 2d 17, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11744, 1991 WL 248414 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Glasserman appeals his conviction and sentence for failure to return a rented vehicle. We reverse.

Appellant was prepared to defend the charges by showing that on November 24, 1988 he had the car with the permission of the rental company and that in December of 1988 he paid for the extended use. Immediately before jury selection, the trial judge granted the state’s motion to amend the information. The date of crime was changed from “on or about November 24, 1988” to “on or about January 5, 1989.” Events that took place in January of 1989 greatly affected appellant’s prepared defenses.

An information serves the important function of placing the accused on notice and giving him or her an opportunity to adequately prepare a defense. Johnson v. State, 190 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla.1967).

Because the state asked for the amendment only after defense counsel delivered discovery material on the day of trial, we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion when he granted the amendment. However, once the trial judge allowed the amendment, we hold that appellant should have been granted his requested continuance. The one day postponement of opening statements to allow appellant to depose a state’s witness, under the circumstances of this case, did not allow appellant adequate time to prepare a defense to the amended information.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

David Glasserman appeals his conviction and sentence for failure to return a rented vehicle. We reverse.

Appellant was prepared to defend the charges by showing that on November 24, 1988 he had the car with the permission of the rental company and that in December of 1988 he paid for the extended use. Immediately before jury selection, the trial judge granted the state’s motion to amend the information. The date of crime was changed from “on or about November 24, 1988” to “on or about January 5, 1989.” Events that took place in January of 1989 greatly affected appellant’s prepared defenses.

An information serves the important function of placing the accused on notice and giving him or her an opportunity to adequately prepare a defense. Johnson v. State, 190 So.2d 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 196 So.2d 925 (Fla.1967).

Because the state asked for the amendment only after defense counsel delivered discovery material on the day of trial, we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion when he granted the amendment. However, once the trial judge allowed the amendment, we hold that appellant should have been granted his requested continuance. The one day postponement of opening statements to allow appellant to depose a state’s witness, under the circumstances of this case, did not allow appellant adequate time to prepare a defense to the amended information.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and WARNER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 17, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11744, 1991 WL 248414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasserman-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack