State v. Rodriguez, 483 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Rodriguez, 483 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Florida v. Lewis Stouffer, 429 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 751 reversing dismissal of the information where the state did not have an obligation to produce witnesses for deposition, and consequently, there was no discovery violation1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
  • State of Florida v. Lewis Stouffer, 429 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026).published
    (reversing dismissal of the information where the state did not have an obligation to produce witnesses for deposition, and consequently, there was no discovery violation)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE of Florida
v.
Eugenio RODRIGUEZ, Carlos I. Estrada, Rolando Fernandez, Aurelio Cicard
No. 85-373.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan 28, 1986.
Published opinion
483 So. 2d 751
1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6022
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant., Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, Nathan and Williams and Douglas Williams, Moore & Rabin, Miami, for appel-lees.
Barkdull, Ferguson, Nesbitt.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order dismissing the information against the defendants. We reverse. The state does not have an obligation to produce witnesses for deposition. State v. Valdes, 443 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Once the state revealed the name and address of the informant, it fulfilled its obligation. Consequently, there was no discovery violation and the imposition of a sanction against the state, in this case dismissal of the information, was erroneous. Valdes.

Reversed and remanded.