criminal case error in Florida

2015In addition, this Court specifically “rejectfed] the State’s contention that .the pretrial hearing on immunity in a criminal case should test merely whether the State has probable cause to believe the defendant’s use of force was not legally justified.” Id. at 463 .

2015In addition, this Court specifically “reject[ed] the State’s contention that the pretrial hearing on immunity in a criminal case should test merely whether the State has probable cause to believe the defendant’s use of force was not legally justified.” Id. at 463 .

2001Second, appellant argues that this court's opinion also ignores the fact that supreme court case law has long held that the facial validity of a statute can be raised for the first time on appeal in a criminal case where the error is fundamental and that nothing in the supreme court's *30 decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000) changed this principle.

1999Fundamental error in a criminal case is error that "reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996) (quoting from State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 832 , 118 S.Ct. 103 , 139 L.Ed.2d 58 (1997)).

1999Fundamental error in a criminal case is error that "reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996) (quoting from State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 832 , 118 S.Ct. 103 , 139 L.Ed.2d 58 (1997)).

1999Fundamental error in a criminal case is error that "reach[es] down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error." Kilgore v. State, 688 So.2d 895, 898 (Fla.1996) (quoting from State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 832 , 118 S.Ct. 103 , 139 L.Ed.2d 58 (1997)).

1995State v. Singletary, 549 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1989).

1988The result in such a case is that while the probation can be terminated on lesser proof and the resulting guideline sentence can be "bumped up" under Rule 3.701 d.14., a departure sentence cannot be entered based upon the subsequent offense for which a conviction has not been obtained whether or not probation is terminated for that reason. [6] In State v. Pentaude, 500 So.2d 526 (Fla. 1987), the certified question appears to have been whether the "circumstances" "surrounding" a probation violation can also constitute a clear and convincing reason for a departure guideline sentence.

1987See State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 492 So.2d 1334 (Fla.1986); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984).

1981In United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the court held that in a criminal case the defense attorney was properly required to produce at trial a statement taken by a defense investigator when that statement had already been used to impeach the prosecution witnesses and where the defense counsel announced his intention of calling his investigator to the stand.

1981In United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the court held that in a criminal case the defense attorney was properly required to produce at trial a statement taken by a defense investigator when that statement had already been used to impeach the prosecution witnesses and where the defense counsel announced his intention of calling his investigator to the stand.

1936I dissent from the view that Austin v. State, 101 Fla. 990 , renders a consideration of contributory negligence on the part of the opposite driver immaterial in a criminal case as a defense to the charge of criminal homicide through culpable negligence.