State v. Rodriguez
483 So. 2d 751, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 288, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6022
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 28, 1986·No. No. 85-373·Published·Cited by 7 cases
Opinion
The state appeals an order dismissing the information against the defendants. We reverse. The state does not have an obligation to produce witnesses for deposition. State v. Valdes, 443 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Once the state revealed the name and address of the informant, it fulfilled its obligation. Consequently, there was no discovery violation and the imposition of a sanction against the state, in this case dismissal of the information, was erroneous. Valdes.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Rodriguez, 483 So. 2d 751, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 288, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6022 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).
483 So. 2d 751 (State v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State of Florida v. Lewis Stouffer
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026
State v. DEVRICK BOYKINS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
Colby v. McNeill
595 So. 2d 115 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
State v. Aronson
45 Fla. Supp. 2d 49 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1991)
State v. Williams
27 Fla. Supp. 2d 121 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1988)
State v. Rojas
508 So. 2d 449 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Mena
505 So. 2d 681 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)