State v. Vazquez, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Vazquez, 718 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Gutierrez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Vazquez v. State, 700 So.2d 5, 8-9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (explaining that counsel may not seek to invoke section 90.108 during cross-examination or during the party's own case) (citation omitted), rev. granted, 705 So.2d 902 (Fla.), dismissed, 718 So.2d 755 (Fla.1998).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Holiday v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Vazquez v. State, 700 So.2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), appeal dismissed, 718 So.2d 755 (Fla.1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Raul VAZQUEZ, Respondent.
91541.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug 27, 1998.
718 So. 2d 755
Per Curiam.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

[*756] Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia A. Terenzio, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chief of Criminal Law, and Diana K. Bock, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Petitioner.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Steven H. Malone, Assistant Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review Vazquez v. State, 700 So.2d 5, 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), in which the district court, on rehearing, certified the following question as one of great public importance:

Does the inaccuracy or incompleteness of the current standard jury instruction for the defense of entrapment reflect a fundamental change in the law requiring retroactive application to all cases after [Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (1993)], or is it instead an evolutionary change in the law requiring only prospective application?

We find that we should decline to address this certified question because the district court did not actually rule on the issue raised by the question. See Gee v. Seidman & Seidman, 653 So.2d 384 (Fla.1995). We do note, however, that the standard jury instruction on the defense of entrapment was recently modified by our opinion in Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 23 Fla. L. Weekly, S407, S415-16, ___ So.2d ___, ___-___ (July 16, 1998).

Accordingly, we dismiss this cause.

It is so ordered.

HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS, ANSTEAD and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.