State v. Furst

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Furst

622 So. 2d 535, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7887, 1993 WL 280495

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2503

StatusPublished

This text of 622 So. 2d 535 (State v. Furst) 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. Furst, 622 So. 2d 535, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7887, 1993 WL 280495 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellee’s speedy trial discharge because the trial court had the discretion to conclude on the record that the state had actual notice of, and intentionally ignored, Appellee’s prematurely filed demand for reciprocal discovery. The demand was filed and served prior to the state’s issuance of the formal information.

There is no indication or finding of intentional misconduct by the defense and the record supports Appellee’s allegations of prejudice if forced to trial prior to the expiration of the speedy trial period. The state’s only explanation for ignoring the actual notice was that the prosecutor wanted to see what transpired in Appellee’s transfer to a “drug court” division of the court before complying with the discovery request.

[536]*536We need not address whether a prematurely filed discovery demand would be enforceable in the absence of actual notice.

ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur. OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellee’s speedy trial discharge because the trial court had the discretion to conclude on the record that the state had actual notice of, and intentionally ignored, Appellee’s prematurely filed demand for reciprocal discovery. The demand was filed and served prior to the state’s issuance of the formal information.

There is no indication or finding of intentional misconduct by the defense and the record supports Appellee’s allegations of prejudice if forced to trial prior to the expiration of the speedy trial period. The state’s only explanation for ignoring the actual notice was that the prosecutor wanted to see what transpired in Appellee’s transfer to a “drug court” division of the court before complying with the discovery request.

[536]*536We need not address whether a prematurely filed discovery demand would be enforceable in the absence of actual notice.

ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur. OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 535, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7887, 1993 WL 280495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-furst-fladistctapp-1993.