Jenkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Jenkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“there are few rights more funda mental than the right of an accused to present witnesses in his or her own defense.”
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Brugmann v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
there are few rights more funda mental than the right of an accused to present witnesses in his or her own defense.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fabian Anthony Perpall v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
So we need not speculate on the answer to that question. 6 . . .”); Beachum v. State, 547 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“We are mindful . . . that appellant had three months prior to trial to locate this witness, yet waited until four days before trial to move for issuance of a subpoena. . . . [H]owever, we find that [the trial court’s] failure to grant a continuance on the basis of Williams's absence constituted a palpable abuse of discretion.”); Jenkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bernard Cheremont v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388, 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
As we have often declared, “ ‘there are few rights more fundamental than the right of an accused to present witnesses in his or her own defense.’ ” Alexander, 931 So.2d at 950 (quoting Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McDuffie v. State
Fla. · 2007 · confidence medium
This is because "[t]here are few rights more fundamental than the right of an accused to present witnesses in his or her own defense." Alexander v. State, 931 So.2d 946 , 950 (Fla. 4th DCA) (quoting Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)) (alteration in original), review denied, 944 So.2d 988 (Fla.2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
This Court has previously determined that "[t]here are few rights more fundamental than the right of an accused to present witnesses in his or her own defense." Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388, 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
discussed Cited "see" T.J.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jenkins v. State, 872 So.2d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (To prevail on a motion to continue based upon witness unavailability, the moving party must show: (1) prior due diligence to obtain the witness’ presence; (2) that substantially favorable testimony would be forthcoming; (3) that the witness was available and willing to testify; and (4) that the denial of the continuance would cause material prejudice.).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dawson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The “trial court’s discretion [to sanction a party for violating the rules of discovery] can be properly exercised only after an adequate inquiry is made into three areas: (1) whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent; (2) whether it was trivial or substantial; and (3) whether it had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party’s trial preparation.” 3 McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312, 321 (Fla. 2007) (citing Richardson, 246 So.2d at 775), Where the discovery violations are committed by a defendant, however, “special importance attaches to the trial court’s inquiry in…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marvin JENKINS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
4D02-5066.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 28, 2004.
872 So. 2d 388
Hazouri.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 75%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

[*389] Charles G. White and Maria L. Sachs of Sachs, Augspurger, White & Associates, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee and Monique E. L'Italien, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

HAZOURI, J.

Marvin Jenkins appeals his conviction of two counts of sexual battery. We reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. The trial court erred by failing to grant Jenkins's request for a continuance in order to present the testimony of two witnesses. These witnesses would testify that the victim had told them that the sexual encounter with Jenkins had been voluntary and it was only after Jenkins refused to pay for the consensual sex that she decided to make a claim that she had been raped. During cross examination, the victim denied she had made such contradictory statements.

Jenkins's theory of defense was that the victim had consented to have sex with him and that the only reason she claimed to have been raped was because he did not pay her. Carolyn and Keshara Griffin were deposed by the state and were subpoenaed for trial by the defense; however, because their car broke down they were unable to get to the courthouse as scheduled. The trial court refused to continue the proceedings to allow Jenkins's counsel to secure their appearance. The trial court also refused to allow introduction of their depositions and rejected the defense counsel's request to take their testimony by telephone. Jenkins argues that the trial court's refusal to grant a continuance constituted an abuse of discretion. We agree.

There are few rights more fundamental than the right of an accused to present witnesses in his or her own defense. See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). In order to prevail in a motion for continuance, the defendant must show: (1) prior due diligence to obtain the witnesses' presence; (2) that substantially favorable testimony would be forthcoming; (3) that the witnesses were available and[*390] willing to testify; and (4) that the denial of the continuance caused material prejudice. See United States v. O'Neill, 767 F.2d 780, 784 (11th Cir.1985); Smith v. State, 762 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review denied, 786 So.2d 1188 (Fla.2001). In the instant case, each of the elements necessary for a continuance to be granted was present. Jenkins had placed the two witnesses under subpoena and the reason for the delay in appearing at trial was as a result of developing car trouble. The two witnesses would provide favorable testimony for Jenkins's defense that the sexual encounter was consensual. In addition, the witnesses were available and willing to testify. Failure to grant the continuance to permit these witnesses to testify clearly caused material prejudice to Jenkins. We find that the trial court abused its discretion and therefore reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.