State v. Done

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Done

32 Fla. Supp. 2d 141

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1989

DocketCase No. 87-217 AC

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 141 (State v. Done) 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. Done, 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 141 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM

The defendant, Nildo Done was arrested for driving under the influence and taken to the police station where he was videotaped. On the day of the scheduled trial, the State advised trial counsel that the [142]*142tape had been destroyed, and it was not produced. The defendant moved for , dismissal of the DUI charge, contending that the videotape could be exculpatory evidence. The Court granted the oral motion to dismiss the charge for failure to produce the videotape.

This matter is Reversed and Remanded to the trial court, for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing to develop the circumstances surrounding the missing videotape, the reason for its nonavailability and evaluating its contents as to prejudice to the defendant. See State v Sobel, 363 So.2d 324; Colon v State, 453 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM

The defendant, Nildo Done was arrested for driving under the influence and taken to the police station where he was videotaped. On the day of the scheduled trial, the State advised trial counsel that the [142]*142tape had been destroyed, and it was not produced. The defendant moved for , dismissal of the DUI charge, contending that the videotape could be exculpatory evidence. The Court granted the oral motion to dismiss the charge for failure to produce the videotape.

This matter is Reversed and Remanded to the trial court, for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing to develop the circumstances surrounding the missing videotape, the reason for its nonavailability and evaluating its contents as to prejudice to the defendant. See State v Sobel, 363 So.2d 324; Colon v State, 453 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Fla. Supp. 2d 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-done-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack