Ocala Star Banner Corp. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ocala Star Banner Corp. v. State

721 So. 2d 838, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15940, 1998 WL 880918

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1998

DocketNo. 98-2741

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 721 So. 2d 838 (Ocala Star Banner Corp. 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

Ocala Star Banner Corp. v. State, 721 So. 2d 838, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15940, 1998 WL 880918 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

The Ocala Star Banner and one of its reporters, Christopher Lloyd, seek certiorari review of a circuit court order denying their motion to quash a subpoena directing Lloyd to testify concerning information obtained during an interview with respondent, John Alan Jones, a defendant in a criminal case. Petitioners asserted the journalist qualified privilege under section 90.5015, Florida Statute.¹

Jones has filed a suggestion of mootness, stating that the subpoena has been withdrawn and Lloyd is no longer compelled to give testimony. Because the subpoena has been withdrawn, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied as moot. Discretionary review by certiorari should be afforded only [839]*839where there is a departure from the essential requirements of law causing miscarriage of justice, and, in this case, there can be no miscarriage of justice since the subpoena in question is no longer in effect. See Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995). See also Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Construction Corp., 393 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (certiorari is not a writ of expediency). The petition for writ of certiorari is denied since the issue is moot, thus, we do not discuss the merits of the petition.

PETITION DENIED AS MOOT.

GRIFFIN, C. J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.

¹

. § 90.5015(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998):

PRIVILEGE. — A professional journalist has a qualified privilege not to be a witness concerning, and not to disclose the information, including the identity of any source, that the professional journalist has obtained while actively gathering news. This privilege applies only to information or eyewitness observations obtained within the normal scope of employment and does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recording of crimes. A party seeking to overcome this privilege must make a clear and specific showing that:

(a) The information is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought:

(b) The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and

(c) A compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information.

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

THOMPSON, J.

The Ocala Star Banner and one of its reporters, Christopher Lloyd, seek certiorari review of a circuit court order denying their motion to quash a subpoena directing Lloyd to testify concerning information obtained during an interview with respondent, John Alan Jones, a defendant in a criminal case. Petitioners asserted the journalist qualified privilege under section 90.5015, Florida Statute.¹

Jones has filed a suggestion of mootness, stating that the subpoena has been withdrawn and Lloyd is no longer compelled to give testimony. Because the subpoena has been withdrawn, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied as moot. Discretionary review by certiorari should be afforded only [839]*839where there is a departure from the essential requirements of law causing miscarriage of justice, and, in this case, there can be no miscarriage of justice since the subpoena in question is no longer in effect. See Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla.1995). See also Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Construction Corp., 393 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (certiorari is not a writ of expediency). The petition for writ of certiorari is denied since the issue is moot, thus, we do not discuss the merits of the petition.

PETITION DENIED AS MOOT.

GRIFFIN, C. J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.

¹

. § 90.5015(2), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1998):

PRIVILEGE. — A professional journalist has a qualified privilege not to be a witness concerning, and not to disclose the information, including the identity of any source, that the professional journalist has obtained while actively gathering news. This privilege applies only to information or eyewitness observations obtained within the normal scope of employment and does not apply to physical evidence, eyewitness observations, or visual or audio recording of crimes. A party seeking to overcome this privilege must make a clear and specific showing that:

(a) The information is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought:

(b) The information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and

(c) A compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 So. 2d 838, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15940, 1998 WL 880918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocala-star-banner-corp-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack