State v. Langer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Langer

490 So. 2d 1019, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1375, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8398

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 19, 1986

DocketNo. 86-879

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 490 So. 2d 1019 (State v. Langer) 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. Langer, 490 So. 2d 1019, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1375, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8398 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

The State of Florida seeks to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this district court of appeal to review a county court order denying a motion in limine made by the State to exclude from evidence at trial the opinion of a certain defense expert witness which order was certified by the county court to be of great public importance.

The testimony of a defense expert witness is not a “confession” nor an “admission” nor is it “evidence obtained by search and seizure.” Therefore a non-final order denying a state’s motion in limine to exclude the opinion testimony of a proposed defense expert witness is not appeal-able by the State under Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) nor any other provision of that rule. The jurisdiction of district courts of appeal to discretionarily review by appeal non-final orders of the county court is limited by Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B) to orders otherwise ap-pealable to the circuit court under Rule 9.140(c). Because the order in question is not appealable to the circuit court under rule 9.140(c) this court does not have jurisdiction to review that order under Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

The State of Florida seeks to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this district court of appeal to review a county court order denying a motion in limine made by the State to exclude from evidence at trial the opinion of a certain defense expert witness which order was certified by the county court to be of great public importance.

The testimony of a defense expert witness is not a “confession” nor an “admission” nor is it “evidence obtained by search and seizure.” Therefore a non-final order denying a state’s motion in limine to exclude the opinion testimony of a proposed defense expert witness is not appeal-able by the State under Rule 9.140(c)(1)(B) nor any other provision of that rule. The jurisdiction of district courts of appeal to discretionarily review by appeal non-final orders of the county court is limited by Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B) to orders otherwise ap-pealable to the circuit court under Rule 9.140(c). Because the order in question is not appealable to the circuit court under rule 9.140(c) this court does not have jurisdiction to review that order under Rule 9.030(b)(4)(B).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 So. 2d 1019, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1375, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-langer-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack