Summary
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed an order granting Ariel Paul’s motions to suppress in a DUI prosecution. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the State’s request for a continuance after three subpoenaed officers failed to appear, because the State had not contacted the officers, confirmed their attendance, or explained their absence.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State's request for a continuance because the State failed to demonstrate due diligence in securing the remaining officers' appearance.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the State's request for a continuance to secure the testimony of subpoenaed officers who failed to appear at a rescheduled suppression hearing.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113, 1114 (Fla. 1990)(followed)
- Magill v. State, 386 So. 2d 1188, 1188 (Fla. 1980)(followed)
- Madison v. State, 132 So. 3d 237, 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)(followed)
- State v. McCarthy, 585 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(contrasted)
- State v. Lawrence, 560 So. 2d 400, 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)(contrasted)
- State v. Bercaw, 363 So. 3d 124, 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)(contrasted)
- Geralds v. State, 674 So. 2d 96, 99 (Fla. 1996)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…