The trial court again granted a motion to dismiss because the time period alleged for the offenses, which had been narrowed from 35 months to 27 months, was still too broad and the information as written could lead a jury to non-unanimous verdicts. State did not create a bright line rule for when an alleged time frame for an offense is too broad,ĭell’Orfano was remanded for further proceedings. Where such showing is made, the burden then shifts to the defendant to show that the defense more likely than not will be prejudiced by the lengthy time frame.” “a trial court on a proper motion is required to dismiss an information or indictment involving lengthy periods of time if the State in a hearing cannot show clearly and convincingly that it has exhausted all reasonable means of narrowing the time frames further. In Perley, the Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for tampering and remand for a new trial on that charge. In Perley, the “State’s actions made the unanimity of the jury’s verdict questionable as some members of the jury could have determined” that crime was one incident while others determined it was another incident. This is evidenced by the State’s response when the court asked what the tampering with evidence charge went to concealing the grow house or burying the body.
2013), the State argued to the jury that it could convict the defendant for one charge of tampering based on one of two separate instances of tampering. “The State’s actions make the unanimity of the jury’s verdict questionable, as some members of the jury could have determined that one incident constituted escape, while others on the jury could have determined that the other incident constituted escape, rather than agreeing unanimously that the same incident constituted escape.” The court held that this was a fundamental error since it compromised the jury’s ability to render a unanimous verdict, reasoning: at 674.Īt trial, the state presented evidence that the defendant escaped from police custody on two separate occasions and argued, without objection by the defense, that the jury could convict the defendant on the escape count based on either of his escapes.
4th DCA 2007), a defendant was charged with one count of escape via an information that did not include any factual specifics. If the trial court does not grant the proper relief, then on appeal, the appellate court will reverse the defendant’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial.Įxamples of “Statement of Particulars” Cases …all the elements of the offense pleaded in terms sufficient enough to apprise the accused of what he must be prepared to meet, and … pleaded in such a manner as to enable the defendant to plead prior jeopardy as a defense if additional charges are brought for the same offense.īattle v. The caption and body of the information contained: The defendant should also establish prejudice from the language of the charging document. If relief is denied by the trial court, then on appeal, the defendant must establish that the information wholly failed to charge a crime or was impermissibly vague, indistinct and indefinite. No indictment or information, or any count thereof, shall be dismissed or judgment arrested, or new trial granted on account of any defect in the form of the indictment or information or of misjoinder of offenses or for any cause whatsoever, unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment or information is so vague, indistinct, and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him or her in the preparation of a defense or expose the accused after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense. Rule 3.140(o) guides the trial court’s determination of whether the dismissal of the case before trial was appropriate: The statement of particulars shall specify as definitely as possible the place, date, and all other material facts of the crime charged that are specifically requested and are known to the prosecuting attorney. The court, on motion, shall order the prosecuting attorney to furnish a statement of particulars when the indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. The rule for the “Statement of Particulars” provides: a motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c).a motion for statement of particulars under Rule 3.140(n) or.If the information fails to properly charge a crime, fails to allege each essential element of the crime, or otherwise fails to provide adequate notice of the crime charged or possible penalties, the Rules of Criminal Procedure provided a defendant with two pre-trial remedies:
0 kommentar(er)
