State v. Bernardo

Miami-Dade County Circuit Court

State v. Bernardo

24 Fla. Supp. 51

CourtCircuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County

DecidedApril 2, 1964

DocketNo. 5495

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Fla. Supp. 51 (State v. Bernardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bernardo, 24 Fla. Supp. 51 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS E. LEE, Jr., Circuit Judge.

The defendant, Carl Bernardo, was arrested on January 9, 1961, and charged with violation of section 30-57 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, i.e., speeding. The lower court, Judge Mattie Bell Davis presiding, found the defendant guilty as charged.

The point on appeal is whether a reading from an untested speedometer, without additional evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of speeding. A careful review of the record and the briefs reveal that the only evidence introduced by the state regarding the alleged speeding violation was the testimony of the arresting officer that the speedometer on his vehicle indicated that the defendant’s vehicle was traveling in excess of the speed limit. The officer readily admitted that he could not honestly say when the speedometer on this particular vehicle, had previously been calibrated or tested for accuracy.

There is no presumption that evidence of measurements by mechanical or scientific instruments is correct in the absence of any evidence that the instrument has been tested for accuracy within a reasonable period. See Annotation: Instrument Measurements — Accuracy, 21 A.L.R. 2d 1201.

It is the opinion of this court that the evidence produced on behalf of the state as to speed consisted only of a reading from an untested speedometer, and that evidence standing alone is insufficient to sustain the state’s required burden of proof. People v. Rothstein, 152 N.Y.S. 2d 757; People v. Harndon, 180 N.Y.S. 2d 799; People v. Page, 222 N.Y.S. 2d 450; Royals v. Commonwealth, 96 S.E. 2d 812; 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §326.

Therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the defendant Carl Bernardo’s conviction is reversed.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, Carl Bernardo, is not guilty.

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

THOMAS E. LEE, Jr., Circuit Judge.

The defendant, Carl Bernardo, was arrested on January 9, 1961, and charged with violation of section 30-57 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, i.e., speeding. The lower court, Judge Mattie Bell Davis presiding, found the defendant guilty as charged.

The point on appeal is whether a reading from an untested speedometer, without additional evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of speeding. A careful review of the record and the briefs reveal that the only evidence introduced by the state regarding the alleged speeding violation was the testimony of the arresting officer that the speedometer on his vehicle indicated that the defendant’s vehicle was traveling in excess of the speed limit. The officer readily admitted that he could not honestly say when the speedometer on this particular vehicle, had previously been calibrated or tested for accuracy.

There is no presumption that evidence of measurements by mechanical or scientific instruments is correct in the absence of any evidence that the instrument has been tested for accuracy within a reasonable period. See Annotation: Instrument Measurements — Accuracy, 21 A.L.R. 2d 1201.

It is the opinion of this court that the evidence produced on behalf of the state as to speed consisted only of a reading from an untested speedometer, and that evidence standing alone is insufficient to sustain the state’s required burden of proof. People v. Rothstein, 152 N.Y.S. 2d 757; People v. Harndon, 180 N.Y.S. 2d 799; People v. Page, 222 N.Y.S. 2d 450; Royals v. Commonwealth, 96 S.E. 2d 812; 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §326.

Therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that the defendant Carl Bernardo’s conviction is reversed.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, Carl Bernardo, is not guilty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Fla. Supp. 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bernardo-flacirct11mia-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack