Stein v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Stein v. State

36 Fla. Supp. 2d 38

Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida·Decided August 7, 1989·No. Case No. 88-740-AC (County Court Case No. 21906-87)·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The state admitted that defendant’s vehicle was inoperable by failing to traverse a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although this defense may have been successful at trial, the fact of inoperability did not conclusively establish defendant’s innocence as a matter of law. Because the state is not required to prove that a vehicle is operable to establish a prima facie case of driving under the influence, the court properly denied the Motion to Dismiss. Jones v State, 510 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED. McNEAL, R., PETERSON, E., TOMBRINK, R., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The state admitted that defendant’s vehicle was inoperable by failing to traverse a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Although this defense may have been successful at trial, the fact of inoperability did not conclusively establish defendant’s innocence as a matter of law. Because the state is not required to prove that a vehicle is operable to establish a prima facie case of driving under the influence, the court properly denied the Motion to Dismiss. Jones v State, 510 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED. McNEAL, R., PETERSON, E., TOMBRINK, R., concur.

Stein v. State, 36 Fla. Supp. 2d 38 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

36 Fla. Supp. 2d 38 (Stein v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related