Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/State v. Roig

State v. Roig

305 So. 2d 836
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 31, 1974
Docket74-822
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 305 So. 2d 836 (State v. Roig) 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. Roig, 305 So. 2d 836 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

305 So.2d 836 (1974)

The STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Eutansio Antolin ROIG, Appellee.

No. 74-822.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 31, 1974.

*837 Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Joseph Durant, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., NATHAN, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

NATHAN, Judge.

Appellant, The State of Florida, appeals an order of the trial court dismissing an information charging the defendant, Roig, with making a lewd and lascivious or indecent assault upon a male minor under the age of fourteen years.

The information was filed on February 11, 1974. On April 15, 1974, the trial court entered an order excluding the testimony of five witnesses for the prosecution because they failed to appear for deposition after being subpoenaed by the defendant. On May 15, 1974, the court entered an order dismissing the information because the prosecution was unable to proceed without the testimony of the witnesses whose testimony had been excluded. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the witnesses were made unavailable by the prosecution to the prejudice of the defendant.

The sole question before this court is whether the prosecution is responsible to produce the state's witnesses for deposition pursuant to being subpoenaed by the defendant. We hold that it is not the responsibility of the state to produce state witnesses subpoenaed by the defendant for discovery purposes. Therefore, the court erred in excluding the witnesses' testimony and dismissing the cause as a result thereof. Proper sanctions may be imposed by the court pursuant to appropriate rules of procedure. See State v. DeVille, Fla.App. 1972, 258 So.2d 492; Rule 3.220, CrPR; Rule 1,380, RCP.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

State v. DEVRICK BOYKINS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
State v. Mendez
821 So. 2d 1115 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
State v. Gorrio
726 So. 2d 832 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
State v. Gonzalez
695 So. 2d 1290 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
State v. Sherman
637 So. 2d 995 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
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. Collins
42 Fla. Supp. 2d 81 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1990)
State v. Ospina
38 Fla. Supp. 2d 19 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1990)
State v. Sullivan
34 Fla. Supp. 2d 48 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1989)
State v. Szaras
32 Fla. Supp. 2d 143 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1989)
State v. McCarthy
29 Fla. Supp. 2d 123 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1988)
State v. Brown
527 So. 2d 209 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Passavant v. State
523 So. 2d 660 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
State v. Williams
27 Fla. Supp. 2d 121 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1988)
State v. Melchor
26 Fla. Supp. 2d 147 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1988)
State v. Queener
26 Fla. Supp. 2d 155 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1988)
State v. Carda
495 So. 2d 912 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Henry
491 So. 2d 1309 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Rodriguez
483 So. 2d 751 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 So. 2d 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roig-fladistctapp-1974.