State v. Benson

19 Fla. Supp. 2d 103
CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida
DecidedSeptember 13, 1985
DocketCase No. 85-778-CFA-31-HDH
StatusPublished

This text of 19 Fla. Supp. 2d 103 (State v. Benson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits 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. Benson, 19 Fla. Supp. 2d 103 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

HUGH D. HAYES, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE came on for hearing on Monday, the 9th day of September, 1985 based upon the Defendant’s Motion for Setting of Bail. THE MOTION IS DENIED, upon the authority of State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980).

On the 6th day of September, 1985, the Grand Jury of Collier County, by a 16-0 vote, presented a True Bill indicting and charging [104]*104the Defendant with nine felonies; four of which were capital felonies or felonies punishable by life imprisonment. A copy of said True Bill is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Essentially, these charges arose out of the car bombing of the Defendant’s mother’s motor vehicle while it was parked outside of the Defendant’s mother’s residence, and while it was occupied by the Defendant’s mother, Margaret H. Benson, now deceased; the Defendant’s brother, Scott Benson, now deceased; and the Defendant’s sister, Carol Benson Kendall, who is currently recovering from the injuries sustained in the blast.

The Defendant has alleged that he is entitled to. bail in this case in accordance with Article 1, Sec. 14 of the Florida Constitution 1885, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.131. Article 1, Sec. 14 of the Florida Constitution of 1885 states:

Bail. Until adjudicated guilty, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to release on reasonable bail with sufficient surety unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great.

Likewise, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.131(a) contains the same language except it also contains a provision that:

... If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm of persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.

The Defendant cites the cases of Russell v. State, 71 So. 27 (Fla. 1916), State v. Williams, 87 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1956), and Mininni v. Gillum, Case No. 85-1533 (2d DCA Fla., June 1985), 10 FLW 1954, as support for the proposition that Defendant is entitled to bail because the proof of guilt is not evident nor is the presumption great, and most emphatically, that the degree of proof necessary before bail can be denied, i.e., a greater degree of proof than that to establish guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is lacking.

The State, on the other side, argues that the standards and burdens required to be met for the denial of bail have clearly and most recently been established by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980). Since the trial court agrees that Arthur is controlling, we shall look to the requirements and standards that must be established pursuant to Chief Justice Boyd’s opinion. (Later in this Opinion, the court will address in an Addendum some problem areas it [105]*105believes have risen based upon earlier court decisions in attempting to define “proof evident or presumption great”).

Until the Arthur opinion in 1980, the rule in Florida had been that in a bail proceeding, the indictment was not conclusive of the Defendant’s guilt, but the burden of proof was on the accused to show that the proof was not evident nor the presumption great. Russell v. State, 71 So. 27 (Fla. 1916). However, Judge Anstead, writing the Opinion for the 4th District Court of Appeals in Arthur v. Harper, 371 So.2d 96 (4 DCA Fla. 1978), now Arthur v. State, supra, successfully demonstrated that based upon the reasoning in the case of Escander v. Ferguson, 441 F. Supp. 53 (S. D. Fla. 1977) that if Section 14 of Article 1 was interpreted in such a way as to leave the trial court with no discretion to grant bail in life felony cases (emphasis added), as a minority of states still do, when the proof is evident, it might be violative of the equal protection and due process provisions of the federal constitution. But see Steigler v. Superior Court of New Castle County, 252 A.2d 300 (Del. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 880, 24 L. Ed. 2d 139, 90 S.Ct. 160 (1969), where the Delaware Supreme Court had ruled a Defendant’s constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution were not violated by a constitutional provision that all prisoners shall be bailable, except when the offense is capital (emphasis added), and proof is positive or presumption is great.

Nevertheless, the Florida Supreme Court in Arthur has apparently taken the position, without distinguishing life felony from capital offense, that the state must come forward with a showing that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great. Arthur, supra at p. 720. The Florida Supreme Court then went on to basically explain the standard as to how the State can meet this initial burden and establish that the proof is evident or the presumption is great, when at p. 720, it continued:

. . . The State’s burden, in order to foreclose bail as a matter of right, is to present some further evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, would be legally sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of guilty
. . . The state can probably carry this burden by presenting the evidence relied upon by the grand jury or the state attorney in charging the crime.

The Court then goes on to say that this evidence can be presented in the form of transcripts or affidavits. The above outlined procedure was precisely what the state attorney has done with the case before the [106]*106court today in regard to Defendant, Benson. Admitted into evidence at the bail hearing and attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein are the Affidavit for Criminal Offense (Exhibit #1); the Affidavit For Search Warrant (Exhibit #2); Affidavit of Albert W. Gleason of the Explosives Technology Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (Exhibit #3); and Affidavit of Frank G. Kendall, Latent Prints Examiner for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (Exhibit #4), all of which are representative and accurate reproductions of the evidence presented to and considered by the Collier County Grand Jury.

After the State had presented their case in the above described manner, the State rested. The defense then stated that they had no witnesses to call or other evidence to present and they likewise rested. The Court concluded the hearing by advising counsel that it would take their arguments under advisement, and that the court felt more independent research was necessary before issuing a ruling.

Based upon the language and procedures established in State v. Arthur, it is quite clear and the Court does find that the State has met its burden and the Court does find that the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption is great.

Normally, even after the State has met its burden and established the requisite standard, the Court, after considering the Defendant’s responsive showing, still has the discretion to grant or deny bail.

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

Related

Harp v. Hinckley
410 So. 2d 619 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Escandar v. Ferguson
441 F. Supp. 53 (S.D. Florida, 1977)
Steigler v. Superior Court, in and for New Castle Co.
252 A.2d 300 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1969)
Gardner v. Murphy
402 So. 2d 525 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
State v. Arthur
390 So. 2d 717 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1980)
Arthur v. Harper
371 So. 2d 96 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Russell v. State
71 So. 27 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1916)
State ex rel. Van Eeghen v. Williams
87 So. 2d 45 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)
Steigler v. Superior Court of Delaware
396 U.S. 880 (Supreme Court, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 Fla. Supp. 2d 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-benson-flacirct-1985.