In re Superior Court

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Superior Court

471 So. 2d 171, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1527, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 18, 1985·No. No. 85-771·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court followed the correct procedure before entering an order requiring appellants to appear as witnesses in a California criminal proceeding pursuant to sections 942.01-942.06, Florida Statutes (1983), the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. Appellants contend that the Florida trial court failed to make an independent determination of materiality and necessity as required by section 942.02(2), Florida Statutes (1983). See generally New York v. Wagner, 79 Ill. App.3d 369, 34 Ill.Dec. 697, 398 N.E.2d 372 (1979). We decline to reach this issue, however, because the affidavits, which the parties stipulated for use by the trial court, conclusively demonstrate that each of the witnesses is material and necessary to the California criminal proceeding. Accordingly, we find that any error by the trial court in failing to strictly comply with the provisions of the Uniform Act is harmless. Accordingly, the order on appeal is

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court followed the correct procedure before entering an order requiring appellants to appear as witnesses in a California criminal proceeding pursuant to sections 942.01-942.06, Florida Statutes (1983), the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. Appellants contend that the Florida trial court failed to make an independent determination of materiality and necessity as required by section 942.02(2), Florida Statutes (1983). See generally New York v. Wagner, 79 Ill. App.3d 369, 34 Ill.Dec. 697, 398 N.E.2d 372 (1979). We decline to reach this issue, however, because the affidavits, which the parties stipulated for use by the trial court, conclusively demonstrate that each of the witnesses is material and necessary to the California criminal proceeding. Accordingly, we find that any error by the trial court in failing to strictly comply with the provisions of the Uniform Act is harmless. Accordingly, the order on appeal is

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

In re Superior Court, 471 So. 2d 171, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1527, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

471 So. 2d 171 (In re Superior Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related