State v. Ashley

393 So. 2d 1168
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 10, 1981
Docket79-1317
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 393 So. 2d 1168 (State v. Ashley) 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. Ashley, 393 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

393 So.2d 1168 (1981)

The STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Robert ASHLEY, Appellee.

No. 79-1317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

February 10, 1981.

Janet Reno, State Atty. and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Deborah Whisnant, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are asked to review a trial court order dismissing an information in a criminal case for failure of the state to produce, pursuant to court order, certain out-of-state witnesses for the defendant for the purpose of taking their discovery deposition after said witnesses had been listed by the state as potential state witnesses in the case. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. § 924.07(1), Fla. Stat. (1979).

We reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to reinstate the information in this cause upon a holding that: (1) the state may not be compelled by court order to produce out-of-state witnesses for the defendant to take their discovery deposition when such witnesses are listed by the state as potential witnesses in a criminal case; (2) it is reversible error for a trial court to dismiss a criminal case for failure of the state to produce such witnesses pursuant to court order; and (3) no showing was made in this case that the state intentionally or negligently suppressed any evidence in this cause, or, indeed, that the evidence claimed to be suppressed was in any way favorable to the defendant. State ex rel. Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So.2d 405 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); see State v. Herrera, 365 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 373 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1978).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

State v. Kiser
610 A.2d 135 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1992)
State v. Carda
495 So. 2d 912 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Del Gaudio
445 So. 2d 605 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
State v. D. A. J.
416 So. 2d 842 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
State v. Mesa
395 So. 2d 242 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
393 So. 2d 1168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ashley-fladistctapp-1981.