Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Middleton v. Stategreen2 sentences1967"The purpose of a bill of particulars is merely to give the defendant notice of the particular acts relied upon by the state to establish the crime charged, that the defendant may be fully advised of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and that he may have an opportunity to prepare a defense." Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234 , 76 So. 785 (1917). 1967"The purpose of a bill of particulars is merely to give the defendant notice of the particular acts relied upon by the state to establish the crime charged, that the defendant may be fully advised of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and that he may have an opportunity to prepare a defense." Middleton v. State, 74 Fla. 234 , 76 So. 785 (1917). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dyegreen1 sentence2025“An information must allege each of the essential elements of a crime to be valid” and “[n]o essential element should be left to inference.” State v. Dye, 346 So. 2d 538, 541 (Fla. 1977). “[D]ue process prohibits a defendant 3 from being convicted of a crime not charged in the information or indictment.” Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004); see also Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673, 677 (Fla. 1973) (“The right of persons accused of serious offenses to know, before trial, the specific nature and detail of crimes they are charged with committing is a basic right guaranteed by our Federal | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“An information must allege each of the essential elements of a crime to be valid” and “[n]o essential element should be left to inference.” State v. Dye, 346 So. 2d 538, 541 (Fla. 1977). “[D]ue process prohibits a defendant 3 from being convicted of a crime not charged in the information or indictment.” Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004); see also Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673, 677 (Fla. 1973) (“The right of persons accused of serious offenses to know, before trial, the specific nature and detail of crimes they are charged with committing is a basic right guaranteed by our Federal | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“An information must allege each of the essential elements of a crime to be valid” and “[n]o essential element should be left to inference.” State v. Dye, 346 So. 2d 538, 541 (Fla. 1977). “[D]ue process prohibits a defendant 3 from being convicted of a crime not charged in the information or indictment.” Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004); see also Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673, 677 (Fla. 1973) (“The right of persons accused of serious offenses to know, before trial, the specific nature and detail of crimes they are charged with committing is a basic right guaranteed by our Federal | 1 | 1 |
Aaron v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“An information must allege each of the essential elements of a crime to be valid” and “[n]o essential element should be left to inference.” State v. Dye, 346 So. 2d 538, 541 (Fla. 1977). “[D]ue process prohibits a defendant 3 from being convicted of a crime not charged in the information or indictment.” Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004); see also Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673, 677 (Fla. 1973) (“The right of persons accused of serious offenses to know, before trial, the specific nature and detail of crimes they are charged with committing is a basic right guaranteed by our Federal | 1 | 1 |
Crain v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“An information must allege each of the essential elements of a crime to be valid” and “[n]o essential element should be left to inference.” State v. Dye, 346 So. 2d 538, 541 (Fla. 1977). “[D]ue process prohibits a defendant 3 from being convicted of a crime not charged in the information or indictment.” Crain v. State, 894 So. 2d 59, 69 (Fla. 2004); see also Aaron v. State, 284 So. 2d 673, 677 (Fla. 1973) (“The right of persons accused of serious offenses to know, before trial, the specific nature and detail of crimes they are charged with committing is a basic right guaranteed by our Federal | 1 | 1 |
Ivory Lee Robinson v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2025“The purpose of an information is to inform the accused of the charge(s) against him, so that the accused will have an opportunity to prepare a defense.” Robinson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1262, 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Tejada v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Tejada v. State, 729 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fox v. State, 490 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Bray v. Rimesgreen1 sentence1993See Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Stang v. Stategreen1 sentence1987Cf. Stang v. State, 421 So.2d 147, 149 (Fla. 1982) (the purpose of the bill of particulars is provide notice to the defendant of the nature of and cause of the accusations against him so that he is afforded the opportunity to prepare a defense); Brown v. State, 462 So.2d 840 , 843 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (same). [1] Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) provides: (c) Time for Moving to Dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fox v. State
green
1 sentence2002See Tejada v. State, 729 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fox v. State, 490 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1987Cf. Stang v. State, 421 So.2d 147, 149 (Fla. 1982) (the purpose of the bill of particulars is provide notice to the defendant of the nature of and cause of the accusations against him so that he is afforded the opportunity to prepare a defense); Brown v. State, 462 So.2d 840 , 843 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (same). [1] Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) provides: (c) Time for Moving to Dismiss. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hunter v. State
neutral
1 sentence1985Hunter v. State, 200 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Green v. State
green
1 sentence1972Quoting from Green v. State, 190 So.2d 42 (2 Fla.App.1966), we stated: “ . . . evidence of other offenses is admissible to prove identity, to show a common scheme or design, to show guilty knowledge, to prove intent, motive or pattern, to show absence of mistake, to show a system of general pattern of criminality, to disprove an alibi, to disprove unlawful entrapment, or as part of the res gestae.” The following statement in Lucas v. State, supra, is apropos to the instant case: “In this jurisdiction a citizen accused of committing a crime, no matter how heinous or reprehensible it may be in t | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Daniel v. State
neutral
1 sentence1967In cases where the corpus delicti may be shown in many ways a denial of a bill of particulars may not entail such harmful consequences to the defendant, and the court’s discretion may not be disturbed; but where the time, place, and circumstances of an alleged crime rest for proof only in the breast, mind, or imagination of a single witness or set of witnesses, the defendant would seem to be entitled to the protection which a bill of particulars affords against the possibility, not to say probability, of a miscarriage of justice.” (Emphasis added) Similarly in a more recent case this court rev | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.