State v. Domenech

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Domenech

533 So. 2d 896, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2470, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4892, 1988 WL 117617

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 8, 1988·No. No. 88-1466·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The subpoenas issued below at the behest of the defendants were directed to witnesses whose supposed testimony was affirmatively shown to bear no legal pertinence whatever to the issues in the case and thus could not be of any potential assistance in the legitimate defense of the pending charges. See Mazepa v. State, 439 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Mesa, 395 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The trial judge therefore erroneously refused to quash the subpoenas, see Kudos v. Vinskus, 483 So.2d 727, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the order to that effect is for that reason itself quashed.

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

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

PER CURIAM.

The subpoenas issued below at the behest of the defendants were directed to witnesses whose supposed testimony was affirmatively shown to bear no legal pertinence whatever to the issues in the case and thus could not be of any potential assistance in the legitimate defense of the pending charges. See Mazepa v. State, 439 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Mesa, 395 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The trial judge therefore erroneously refused to quash the subpoenas, see Kudos v. Vinskus, 483 So.2d 727, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the order to that effect is for that reason itself quashed.

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

State v. Domenech, 533 So. 2d 896, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2470, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4892, 1988 WL 117617 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

533 So. 2d 896 (State v. Domenech) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related