TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Smith

State v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 4, 1977
Docket
No. 76-1260
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
342 So. 2d 1094

Opinion — Per Curiam

342 So.2d 1094 (1977)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,

v.

Clarence SMITH, Appellee.

No. 76-1260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 4, 1977.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and Robert H. Grizzard, II, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Smith and John Robinson were charged with possession and sale of heroin. *1095 The charges arose out of a purported drug sale to an undercover agent. A tape recording was made of the transaction, but was subsequently misplaced by the state. Robinson moved for dismissal of the charges against him, alleging the tape contained material that would be favorable to his defense, with which the state agreed. Smith was allowed to join in the motion at the hearing on the matter. The trial court dismissed the charges against both defendants on the basis of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Farrell v. State, 317 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

The state filed this appeal alleging that it was error to dismiss the charges against appellees Smith and Robinson. The state has voluntarily dismissed its appeal as to Robinson.

The dismissal of the charges against a defendant under these circumstances is an extreme sanction that should only be utilized with caution after a great deal of deliberation. In the record there is no evidence that would demonstrate that the tape contained material favorable to appellee Smith.

Upon remand the trial court should take evidence to determine if the tape was indeed Brady material as to Smith. If it were, the court should make inquiry to determine the culpability of the state in misplacing the tape and then impose such sanctions, if any, the court deems just under the circumstances. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(j)(1).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1978: 31979: 11980: 21982: 11983: 11985: 11986: 11987: 11990: 21997: 12008: 22009: 119782026peak 1978 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Sobel363 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1978)
  2. State v. Westerman688 So. 2d 979 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
  3. State v. Cordia564 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
  4. State v. King372 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
  5. State v. Hamilton387 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
  6. Budman v. State362 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Bennett v. State23 So. 3d 782 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
  2. State v. TG990 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
  3. State v. T.G.990 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) · Dissent
  4. State v. Westerman688 So. 2d 979 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
  5. State v. Cordia564 So. 2d 601 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
  6. State v. Archer42 Fla. Supp. 2d 29 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1990)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 30,396
Farrell v. State, 317 So. 2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list