State v. Yeoman

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Yeoman

40 Fla. Supp. 2d 50

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1989

DocketCase No. 89-0047-AC A02 (County Court Case No. 89-15401-TC A02)

StatusPublished

This text of 40 Fla. Supp. 2d 50 (State v. Yeoman) 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. Yeoman, 40 Fla. Supp. 2d 50 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

[51]*51OPINION OF THE COURT

CARLISLE, J.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied and the Court holds as follows:

1) The State has standing;

2) The State’s appeal will be treated as a petition for certiorari, City of Deerfield Beach v Vailant, 419 So 2d 624.

All other issues are set for oral argument on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1989, at 2:00 p.m. Palm Beach County Courthouse, Room 404, 300 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida.

ORDERED: September 14, 1989

Opinion filed: November 29, 1989.

The trial court at an implied consent hearing sustained a defense objection to the testimony of a Deputy Sheriff investigating a one-car accident to the effect that appellant, Yoeman, identified herself as the driver of the car. The basis of the court’s ruling was the accident report privilege, § 316.066 F.S.

We must reverse on the authority of California v Byers, 402 US 424, 29 L.Ed 2d 9, S. Ct. 1535 (1971), State v Combs, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1983), O’Brien v Ortez, 467 So.2d 1056 (3DCA 1985).

This case is remanded to the County Court with instructions to conduct an implied consent hearing.

COHEN, MILLER, JJ., concurring.

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