State v. Perez

524 So. 2d 482, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1064, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1744, 1988 WL 40525
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 1988·No. No. 87-1118·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged by information with possession of cocaine. During a preliminary hearing, the trial judge asked defense counsel if Perez wanted to take a polygraph examination. The judge went on to say that if the defendant passed the exam, the charge would be dismissed, but if he failed, the test result would be admitted into evidence. Defense counsel agreed, but the assistant state attorney objected. The test was administered, Perez passed, and the charge was dismissed. The state appeals.

We hold that the state did not acquiesce and become bound by this agreement. The fact that the assistant state attorney obtained assurance, after objecting, that polygraph results adverse to the defendant could be used as evidence against him did not amount to the state’s acquiescence to the agreement. It was simply a move to protect the state’s interest should the court go ahead with its plan. For this reason, the order of dismissal is reversed with directions to reinstate the information.

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

State v. Perez, 524 So. 2d 482, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1064, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1744, 1988 WL 40525 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

524 So. 2d 482 (State v. Perez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Camacho
661 So. 2d 959 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Clark v. State
651 So. 2d 1309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
State v. Robinson
571 So. 2d 40 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)