State v. Queener

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Queener

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 155

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1988

DocketCase No. 87 200 AC (County Court Case No. 27980, 1NR)

StatusPublished

This text of 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 155 (State v. Queener) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits 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. Queener, 26 Fla. Supp. 2d 155 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

[156]*156The issue in this case is whether the trial court was correct in granting a motion for discharge under RCrP 3.191 because defendant had been continuously available and was not brought to trial within ninety days. The discharge occurred because the defendant was not able to depose witnesses he learned about from taking a witness’s deposition. The defendant was given eleven days before the trial to take the depositions but he was unable.

“It is not the responsibility of the State to produce witnesses subpoenaed by the defense for discovery purposes.” State v. Bonamy, 409 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Rosenwasser v. Smith, 308 So.2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As was stated in Rubiera v. Dade County ex rel Benitez, 305 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1974). “The guarantee of Rule 3.191 is not inconsistent with the accused’s right to utilize discovery tools available to him.” This is because a defendant may demand to be brought to trial within sixty days of a demand made when he or she has completed discovery. RCrP 3.191(a)(2).

The order of discharge is vacated and the case is remanded to the County Court to reset the defendant’s trial.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

[156]*156The issue in this case is whether the trial court was correct in granting a motion for discharge under RCrP 3.191 because defendant had been continuously available and was not brought to trial within ninety days. The discharge occurred because the defendant was not able to depose witnesses he learned about from taking a witness’s deposition. The defendant was given eleven days before the trial to take the depositions but he was unable.

“It is not the responsibility of the State to produce witnesses subpoenaed by the defense for discovery purposes.” State v. Bonamy, 409 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Rosenwasser v. Smith, 308 So.2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As was stated in Rubiera v. Dade County ex rel Benitez, 305 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1974). “The guarantee of Rule 3.191 is not inconsistent with the accused’s right to utilize discovery tools available to him.” This is because a defendant may demand to be brought to trial within sixty days of a demand made when he or she has completed discovery. RCrP 3.191(a)(2).

The order of discharge is vacated and the case is remanded to the County Court to reset the defendant’s trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 Fla. Supp. 2d 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-queener-flacirct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack