State v. Mena

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Mena

505 So. 2d 681, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1086, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7805

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1987

DocketNo. 86-867

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 505 So. 2d 681 (State v. Mena) 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. Mena, 505 So. 2d 681, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1086, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7805 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order dismissing the charges against the defendants is reversed upon the holdings that the State fulfilled its obligation to the defendants when it furnished them with the address of the informer whose name was already known to them, State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and, absent some showing that the State “either through calculated official ignorance or deliberate, intentional activity was at fault [682]*682for the informer’s disappearance in this case, or for its failure to know the informer’s whereabouts,” Guzman v. State, 498 So.2d 639, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the State cannot be held responsible for the defendants’ inability to procure the informer as a defense witness at trial.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s order dismissing the charges against the defendants is reversed upon the holdings that the State fulfilled its obligation to the defendants when it furnished them with the address of the informer whose name was already known to them, State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); and, absent some showing that the State “either through calculated official ignorance or deliberate, intentional activity was at fault [682]*682for the informer’s disappearance in this case, or for its failure to know the informer’s whereabouts,” Guzman v. State, 498 So.2d 639, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the State cannot be held responsible for the defendants’ inability to procure the informer as a defense witness at trial.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 So. 2d 681, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1086, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mena-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack