Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 902.17 (2025)

Procedure when witness does not give security.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

902.17 Procedure when witness does not give security.—

(1) If a witness required to enter into a recognizance to appear refuses to comply with the order, the trial court judge shall commit the witness to custody until she or he complies or she or he is legally discharged.

(2) If the trial court judge requires a witness to give security for her or his appearance and the witness is unable to give the security, the witness may apply to the court having jurisdiction to try the defendant for a reduction of the security.

(3) If it appears from examination on oath of the witness or any other person that the witness is unable to give security, the trial court judge or the court having jurisdiction to try the defendant shall make an order finding that fact, and the witness shall be detained pending application for her or his conditional examination. Within 3 days from the entry of the order, the witness shall be conditionally examined on application of the state or the defendant. The examination shall be by question and answer in the presence of the other party and counsel, and shall be transcribed by a court reporter or stenographer selected by the parties. At the completion of the examination the witness shall be discharged. The deposition of the witness may be introduced in evidence at the trial by the defendant, or, if the prosecuting attorney and the defendant and the defendant’s counsel agree, it may be admitted in evidence by stipulation. The deposition shall not be admitted on behalf of the state without the consent of the defendant.

(4) If a conditional examination is not made within 3 days, the witness shall be discharged.

(5) A witness detained for conditional examination shall be entitled to fees as a witness for the period of her or his commitment.

History.—s. 41, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(41); s. 17, ch. 70-339; s. 1471, ch. 97-102; s. 27, ch. 2004-11.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1953–2011 · leading case: In the Matter of Justin Alexander Marshall Justin Alexander Marshall v. State of Iowa, 805 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Matter of Justin Alexander Marshall Justin Alexander Marshall v. State of Iowa, 805 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 2011). · cites it 2× “Penal Code § 882 ; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 902.17 (3) (West, Westlaw through Oct.”

James v. State, 254 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). · cites it 5× “” The statute referred to by the court in Davis, to wit, F.S. § 902.17, F.S.A., continues in pertinent parts to remain the law of this state and prohibits the State from offering as substantive evidence at the trial any deposition given by a material witness who testified at the…”

State ex rel. Gebhardt v. Buchanan, 175 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). · cites it 4× “The question which we must determine is whether § 902.17 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., applies to this petitioner so that his restraint is now illegal.”

Davis v. State, 65 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1953). “12, that if the defendant testifies, and if he signs his deposition it may be used against him at the trial, and the second is that, in the case of depositions taken under Section 902.17, F.S.A. of a witness who does not give security, that such deposition may be used in the…”

— 902.17(3) — 1 case

James v. State, 254 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). “” The statute referred to by the court in Davis, to wit, F.S. § 902.17, F.S.A., continues in pertinent parts to remain the law of this state and prohibits the State from offering as substantive evidence at the trial any deposition given by a material witness who testified at the…”

— 902.17(4) — 1 case

State ex rel. Gebhardt v. Buchanan, 175 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). “The question which we must determine is whether § 902.17 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., applies to this petitioner so that his restraint is now illegal.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.