State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1989 · …a preadjudicatory hearing order ... suppressing a confession or admission made by a juvenile respondent. ⚠ not in text
129 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Raulerson v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2025-04-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raulerson v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
V, § 5(b), Fla. Const. 13 State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1972) (explaining that the constitution “does not authorize the legislature to provide for interlocutory review,” so “any statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is clearly a declaration of legislative policy and no more” and is void “unless the Supreme Court of Florida adopts such statute as its own”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF FLORIDA v. TYLER KERSTING (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
I, § 23. (“Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided therein.”); State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1972) (holding that trial court could not compel a witness to be examined for visual acuity).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spaziano v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
E.g., State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla.1972) (recognizing that no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded than the right of an individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others); State v. Brewster, 601 So.2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (quashing an order requiring victim to submit to blood test).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. McIntosh (2×) also: Cited "see"
Kan. · 2002 · confidence medium
In rendering its decision that the trial court had tire authority to order a victim to submit to a physical examination, the Barone court stated: *951 “We begin our analysis by observing that, as a matter of background, ‘the common law does not authorize a court to require the physical examination of a witness, because discovery in criminal cases was unknown to the common law.’ State v. Smith, 260 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gaines
Fla. · 2000 · confidence medium
(Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 489 (Fla.1972), we held that another subsection of section 924.07 [1] was unconstitutional because "the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain such interlocutory appeals may be granted only by rule of this Court." In Smith , we relied on the prior constitutional provision, article V, section 5(3), Florida Constitution (1968), which contained a provision substantially similar to that now found in article V, section 4(b)(1). [2] As we unequivocally explained in Smith : The Constitution does not authorize the legislature to provide f…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Stanley
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Section 924.07(1)( l ), Florida Statutes (Supp.1998), also provides that the state may take an appeal from an "order ... suppressing evidence ... in limine...." But the "`Constitution does not authorize the legislature to provide for interlocutory review.'" State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla.1972) (quoting State v. Smith, 254 So.2d 402, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)) ("`Any statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is clearly a declaration of legislative policy and no more ... unless [by rule] the Supreme Court of Florida adopts such statute as its own....'").
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gonsalves
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.N. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const, (amended 1972); State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d at 252 ; State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490-91 (Fla.1972) (construing predecessor provision of Florida Constitution); State v. M.G., 550 So.2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 462 (Fla.1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) An v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. (amended 1972); State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d at 252 ; State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490-91 (Fla. 1972) (construing predecessor provision of Florida Constitution); State *930 v. M.G., 550 So.2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Huntsman (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla.1972) (quashing a trial court order compelling prosecution witnesses to submit to an optical examination to test their visual acuity).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kuntsman (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1972) (quashing a trial court order compelling prosecution witnesses to submit to an optical examination to test their visual acuity).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Barone (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tenn. · 1993 · confidence medium
We begin our analysis by observing that, as a matter of background, “the common law does not authorize a court to require the physical examination of a witness, because discovery in criminal cases was unknown to the common law.” State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Diamond
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Even assuming, that in some rare instance, justice may require some type of physical examination of a witness, more must be shown than in the case sub judice. 260 So.2d at 491 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Drab
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
In State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1972), the supreme court, in an opinion quashing an order requiring that witnesses submit to an eye examination, pointed out that neither the common law nor the rules of criminal procedure authorize a court "to grant a motion compelling witnesses to submit to a physical examination of any sort." By way of dicta, however, the opinion adds: "Even assuming, that in some rare instance, justice may require some type of physical examination of a witness, more must be shown than in the case sub judice." Id.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Pettis (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. · 1988 · confidence medium
Id. at 489.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Interest of R. J. B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited as authority (rule) RJB v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Pearce
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] Sec. 924.071(2): "An appeal by the state from a pretrial order shall stay the case against each defendant upon whose application the order was made until the appeal is determined." [2] Rule 6.3 b: "Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within [30 days] ... or prior to the commencement of the trial whichever is sooner ..." In State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 1972), the Supreme Court adopted this court's opinion that: "`This Rule [6.3 b, F.A.R.] breathes life into a legislative Act which purports to permit appellate review of a pretrial orde…
cited Cited "see" In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)
Fla. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
discussed Cited "see" Mallory v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972) (noting that the court had previously adopted an unconstitutional statute purporting to allow nonfinal appeals in criminal cases as a rule of appellate procedure).
cited Cited "see" Amendment to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rule 9.142)
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see" Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see" Amendment to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc.
Fla. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
discussed Cited "see" Reed v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972) (holding trial court lacked authority to order witnesses, who might be used by the state to identify persons involved in perpetration of crime alleged to have been committed by defendants, to be examined for visual acuity by specified physician prior to trial); State v. Kuntsman, 643 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering prosecution witnesses to view array of 38 photographs and then be questioned about photos during the course of criminal depositions where defense had failed t…
cited Cited "see" Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.
Fla. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see" Bryant v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see" Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.
Fla. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see" Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.
Fla. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see" In Re Amendments to Florida Rules
Fla. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Simmons
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972); State v. Rhone, 566 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 4th 1990); State v. LeBlanc, 558 So.2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); State v. Farr, 558 So.2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); State v. Diamond, 553 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); State v. Drab, 546 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), review denied, 553 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1989); State v. Coe, 521 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Wilson (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith, 260 So.2d at 491 ; Harris, 136 So.2d at 634 ; Horvatch, 413 So.2d at 470 .
cited Cited "see" State v. G.P.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972); In the Interest of R.J.B. v. State, 408 So.2d 1048 (Fla.1982). .
discussed Cited "see" State v. GP
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972); In the Interest of R.J.B. v. State, 408 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1982). [5] The use of certiorari to obtain review of an interlocutory order is not considered in this opinion. [6] The amendment was intended to define and confine the powers and jurisdiction of the supreme court in order to avoid the danger of the district courts of appeal becoming way stations on the road to the supreme court.
cited Cited "see" In Re Emergency Amendments to Rules, Etc.
Fla. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972).
cited Cited "see" State v. I. B.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see" In Re Proposed Florida Appellate Rules
Fla. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972).
cited Cited "see" State v. Smail
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972).
cited Cited "see" In re J. B.
Fla. Cir. Ct., St. Lucie Cty. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972).
cited Cited "see" In Re Clarification of Florida Rules of Prac. & Pro.
Fla. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith and Figgers, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Del Rey
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1988); see also State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972); 4 Florida Criminal Practice Service § 11.37 (1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Thomas
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla.1972).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Katiba
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1972).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
David Charles SMITH, Jr. and Alphonso Figgers, Appellees.
41762.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Mar 29, 1972.
260 So. 2d 489
Adkins.
Cited by 89 opinions  |  Published

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Wilfred C. Varn, and E.C. Deeno Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellees.

ON REHEARING GRANTED AND ORIGINAL OPINION WITHDRAWN

ADKINS, Justice.

This is a direct appeal from the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (State v. Smith and Figgers, 254 So.2d 402, which held that Fla. Stat. § 924.07(8), F.S.A., authorizing appeals by the State from pretrial orders is unconstitutional on the ground that the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain such interlocutory appeals may be granted only by rule of this Court.

Although requested, the Court dispenses with oral argument. Florida Appellate Rules, Rule 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A.

Upon motion of the defendants, who were indicted for first degree murder, the trial[*490] court entered a pretrial order that witnesses, who may be used by the State for identification of the persons involved in the perpetration of the crime alleged to have been committed by defendants, shall be examined for visual acuity by a specified doctor at a time and place to be specified by him prior to the trial. By interlocutory appeal to the District Court of Appeal, First District, the State sought a reversal of this order. The District Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and referred to the following portion of Fla. Const., art. V, § 5(3), F.S.A.:

"Jurisdiction. Appeals from trial courts in each appellate district, ... may be taken to the court of appeal of such district, as a matter of right, from all final judgments ... except those from which appeals may be taken direct to the supreme court or to a circuit court." ...
"The supreme court ... may provide for review by such courts of interlocutory orders or decrees in matters reviewable by the district courts of appeal."

The District Court of Appeal held the statute unconstitutional, reasoning that it was ineffective unless a rule of this Court "breathes life" into the legislative act. We agree and adopt the following portion of the opinion rendered by the District Court of Appeal:

"The instant appeal sought by the State is not from a final judgment, and is not one appealable directly to the Supreme Court or to a Circuit Court. Jurisdiction of this Court to entertain interlocutory appeals from pretrial orders is dependent upon the Supreme Court providing for such review. Has the Supreme Court so provided? We conclude that it has not.
"The sole provision promulgated by the Supreme Court for appellate review of pretrial orders in criminal cases is found in Rule 6.3 subd. b, 32 F.S.A.(1)
"[1] Rule 6.3, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, reads:
"`b. Appeals pursuant to Section 924.071, Florida Statutes 1967, shall be taken within the time prescribed in subsection a. above, or prior to the commencement of the trial whichever is sooner. The procedure for such appeals shall be as provided in Rule 4.2. Such appeals shall be given priority on the docket.'
This Rule breathes life into alegislative Act(2) which purports to permit appellate review of a pretrial order which quashes a search warrant, suppresses evidence obtained by search and seizure, or suppresses a confession or admission made by a defendant.
"[2] F.S. § 924.071, F.S.A.
"The legislature has sought to provide appellate review of other pretrial orders entered in criminal cases(3) through enactment of Section 924.07(8), which provides:
"[3] F.S. § 924.07(8), F.S.A.
"`All other pretrial orders, except that it may not take more than one appeal under this subsection in any case... .'
"The Supreme Court has not as of this date adopted or implemented this legislative declaration of public policy.
"Appellate review of any order or judgment entered by a trial court is not a right derived from the common law. The right of appellate review is derived from the sovereign; i.e., the citizens of this State. By means of Article V of the Florida Constitution, the citizens have granted to a litigant as a matter of right appellate review of a final judgment. The sovereign has decreed that `The supreme court ... may provide for review by such courts of interlocutory orders... .' (Emphasis theirs.)[*491] This explicit provision is clearly substantive and not procedural.(4) The Constitution does not authorize the legislature to provide for interlocutory review. Any statute purporting to grant interlocutory appeals is clearly a declaration of legislative policy and no more. Until and unless the Supreme Court of Florida adopts such statute as its own (as it did with regard to Section 924.071), the purported enactment is void."
"[4] Levin and Amsterdam, Legislative Control Over Judicial Rule-Making: A Problem in Constitutional Revision, 107 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1, 14 (1958).

However, the District Court of Appeal treated the interlocutory appeal as a petition for a writ of common law certiorari, and held that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. The petition for writ of certiorari was denied.

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of an individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891). The common law does not authorize a court to require the physical examination of a witness, because discovery in criminal cases was unknown to the common law. See State v. Lampp, 155 So.2d 10 (Fla.App.2d, 1963). Pursuant to the authority of Fla. Const. art. V, § 3, this Court has adopted rules of procedure governing criminal trials in this State. These rules include certain provisions relating to discovery in criminal cases. See Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.220, 33 F.S.A. Nothing contained in these rules purports to authorize a trial court to grant a motion compelling witnesses to submit to a physical examination of any sort.

In Green v. State, 251 So.2d 307 (Fla. App.1st, 1971), the victim was agreeable to having an operation in order to have a bullet removed. The only question presented was whether the State should be compelled to defray the cost of the operation. The District Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in denying defendant's motion to require the State, at county expense, to remove the bullet from the body of the alleged assault victim. This decision renders no comfort to the order of the trial judge in the case sub judice.

The only ground for the motion asserted by the defendants in the case sub judice was that the State's case depended in whole or in part upon the identification of defendants by eye witnesses. Even assuming, that in some rare instance, justice may require some type of physical examination of a witness, more must be shown than in the case sub judice.

The trial judge in entering the order in question departed from the essential requirements of law.

That portion of the decision of the District Court of Appeal denying the petition for writ of certiorari is quashed. This cause is remanded with instructions to grant the writ of certiorari and quash the order of the trial judge.

The time for filing petition for rehearing is hereby limited to April 5, 1972.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C.J., and CARLTON, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.