State v. Panice

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Panice

488 So. 2d 656, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1166, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7914

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1986

DocketNo. 85-580

StatusPublished

This text of 488 So. 2d 656 (State v. Panice) 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. Panice, 488 So. 2d 656, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1166, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7914 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This criminal case was dismissed because the state supposedly altered evidence and/or committed a discovery violation. These alleged derelictions were not demonstrated even to have existed. See Valenzuela v. State, 426 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Assuming that they did, dismissal was a wholly inappropriate and excessive sanction. State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984). The final order under review is therefore reversed.

To the extent that the trial court suppressed any evidence other than the particular items which were illegally seized, the order of suppression below is also reversed. State v. Tillman, 402 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see State v. Eicher, 431 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (en banc).

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

PER CURIAM.

This criminal case was dismissed because the state supposedly altered evidence and/or committed a discovery violation. These alleged derelictions were not demonstrated even to have existed. See Valenzuela v. State, 426 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Assuming that they did, dismissal was a wholly inappropriate and excessive sanction. State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984). The final order under review is therefore reversed.

To the extent that the trial court suppressed any evidence other than the particular items which were illegally seized, the order of suppression below is also reversed. State v. Tillman, 402 So.2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see State v. Eicher, 431 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (en banc).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 So. 2d 656, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1166, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-panice-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack