THE STATE OF FIORIDA, PETITIONER, CHARLES WEBER, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court correctly prevented the use of former testimony and erred in denying the state's motion for an extension of the speedy trial period.
[1] A trial court order preventing the use of a state's chief witness's former testimony is correctly upheld when the witness's competency to stand trial was previously quest…
[2] Failure to conduct a formal competency hearing may constitute a denial of due process.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State of Florida sought review of a trial court order that held inadmissible the testimony of its chief witness from a former trial. The issue aro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Nunc Pro Tunc Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida seeks review of a trial court order holding inadmissible the testimony of the state’s chief witness from Weber’s former trial. We conclude that the trial court correctly prevented the use of the former testimony for the following reasons.
Previously, this court held in Weber v. State, 438 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), that the failure of the trial court to conduct a formal competency hearing constituted a denial of due process. Id. at 984. In reaching the decision that reasonable grounds existed to believe Weber was not competent to stand trial, the court noted with particularity the explicit conclusions of the psychiatric expert who opined that Weber’s “mental condition prevents him from using rational defense tactics and theories _” Id. at 983 n. 4.
The state argues that, because a formal competency determination at the first trial was never made, a nunc pro tune competency hearing should be held. Although this procedure is available in certain limited circumstances, see Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1971) (in addition to psychiatric reports establishing grounds to believe defendant insane, a hearing had been requested); Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (remanded upon the authority of State v. Williams, 447 So. 2d 356. (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State v. Williams, 447 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (no evidence in record suggesting incompetency at time of trial), we do not believe that such a hearing would be appropriate on this record.
We agree with the state that the issue presented is not a simple one and, therefore, the trial court erred when it denied the state’s motion for extension of the speedy trial period during the pendency of this appeal. See State v. Barnett, 366 So. 2d 411 (Fla.1978). See also State v. Jenkins, 389 So. 2d 971 (Fla.1980).
We accordingly grant the state’s petition for certiorari in part and deny it in part and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our mandate in Weber.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weber v. State, 501 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…erlying the seriousness of putting an arguably incompetent defendant on trial, we subsequently upheld a trial court ruling excluding from Weber’s new trial the reported testimony of a prosecution witness given at Weber’s first trial. Weber v. State, 466 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). II. We come now to Weber’s second trial— the case before us. Having been found competent to stand trial, Weber apparently deemed himself fit not merely to assist counsel, but, with the trial court’s begrudging imprimatur (not c…1 / 2
-
State v. Nelson, 785 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…2d at 399. Furthermore, the State is entitled to an extension of the speedy trial period during the pendency of this appeal. See State v. Fiorentino, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D772, 2000 WL 305750, — So. 2d - (Fla. 3d DCA March 24, 2000); State v. Weber, 466 So. 2d 345, 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).…
Authorities Cited
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Jenkins, 389 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Williams, 447 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Davis v. Brown, 366 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Barnett, 366 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1978)
- Weber v. State, 438 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Brown v. State, 449 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)