Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/State v. Ellis

State v. Ellis

491 So. 2d 1296, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1691
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 5, 1986
Docket85-1964
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 491 So. 2d 1296 (State v. Ellis) 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. Ellis, 491 So. 2d 1296, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1691 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

491 So.2d 1296 (1986)

The STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Charles Lamont ELLIS, Appellee.

No. 85-1964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

August 5, 1986.

Janet Reno, State Atty., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. State Atty., Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Irv J. Lamel, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

The state contends that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen a suppression hearing to admit crucial evidence. We agree and reverse the order under review.

We are persuaded, by the state, that the testimony sought to be admitted would have impacted upon the decision of the trial court and was crucial to the state's argument. Nonetheless, the trial court refused to reopen the case for the admission of this testimony. This case is similar to the situation presented in Steffanos v. State, 80 Fla. 309, 86 So. 204 (1920). In Steffanos, the parties rested, and the court recessed over the weekend. On Monday morning, defense counsel sought to introduce crucial *1297 testimony. In overruling the trial court, the supreme court said that the refusal to reopen a case in such a circumstance "is to enforce a rule of procedure almost to the point of a denial of justice... . [S]uch rules ought not to be applied with such technical precision and unbending rigor as to produce injustice." 86 So. at 205.

The record indicates that the suppression hearing, ending on May 28, 1985, was either not complete or was reopened — the trial court allowed further legal argument on the issues before it, on June 3, 1985 — when the court denied the state's motion to admit the previously omitted crucial evidence. Where, as here, the case is technically not closed and the ends of justice may best be served by the admission of crucial evidence, it is an abuse of the trial court's discretion to deny the introduction of such evidence. Steffanos, 86 So. at 206.

Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and remanded for rehearing.

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

Related

State v. Bozung
2011 UT 2 (Utah Supreme Court, 2011)
DW v. State
40 So. 3d 782 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
State v. Laveroni
910 So. 2d 333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Irizarry v. State
905 So. 2d 160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Hood v. State
808 So. 2d 1257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
State v. Slater
762 So. 2d 1057 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Donaldson v. State
722 So. 2d 177 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Vazquez v. State
700 So. 2d 5 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Hall v. State
687 So. 2d 66 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Louisy v. State
667 So. 2d 972 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Weary v. State
644 So. 2d 156 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Lambert v. State
626 So. 2d 340 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Delgado v. State
573 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
491 So. 2d 1296, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ellis-fladistctapp-1986.