State v. Adrian Cummins

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Adrian Cummins

225 So. 3d 417, 2017 WL 3896910, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12908

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2017

DocketCase 5D17-2077

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 417 (State v. Adrian Cummins) 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

State v. Adrian Cummins, 225 So. 3d 417, 2017 WL 3896910, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12908 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida petitions for writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s discovery order requiring it to disclose to the defense which,, out of .a number of recorded jail calls between Adrian Cummins (Respondent) and others, would be introduced at trial. Although we conclude the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the. law, see State v. Williams, 678 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that State did not have to tell defendants which documents, out of 285 boxes of documents, it intended on using at trial because to do so would violate work-product doctrine), the State has failed to show irreparable harm. See State v. Milbry, 219 So.3d 160, 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (explaining irreparable harm is jurisdictional and must be found before court may consider whether departure from the essential requirements of the law occurred). Specifically, the State has failed to show that its ability to proper cute Respondent would be significantly impaired by the trial court’s ruling. The trial court indicated that additional calls could be admissible upon a showing of good cause by the State, and the State has not argued that it would be unable to show good- causé. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

DISMISSED.

PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida petitions for writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s discovery order requiring it to disclose to the defense which,, out of .a number of recorded jail calls between Adrian Cummins (Respondent) and others, would be introduced at trial. Although we conclude the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the. law, see State v. Williams, 678 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that State did not have to tell defendants which documents, out of 285 boxes of documents, it intended on using at trial because to do so would violate work-product doctrine), the State has failed to show irreparable harm. See State v. Milbry, 219 So.3d 160, 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (explaining irreparable harm is jurisdictional and must be found before court may consider whether departure from the essential requirements of the law occurred). Specifically, the State has failed to show that its ability to proper cute Respondent would be significantly impaired by the trial court’s ruling. The trial court indicated that additional calls could be admissible upon a showing of good cause by the State, and the State has not argued that it would be unable to show good- causé. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.

DISMISSED.

PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 417, 2017 WL 3896910, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-adrian-cummins-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack