TADD D. HOSKINS, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT C. KNOWLES, SHERIFF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE HONORABLE MARC A. CIANCA, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENTS
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 erred in denying the petition for bond because the state failed to establish that the proof of guilt was evident or the presumption great.
Petitioner sought pretrial release on bond, but the trial court denied his petition. The state's evidence was contradicted by defense witnesses regard…
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 Right To Bail cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tadd D. Hoskins petitions for writ of habeas corpus challenging the trial court’s order denying his petition to set bond, in his prosecution for an offense as to which there is no right to bail if the state establishes that the proof of his guilt was evident or the presumption great. See Art. I, § 14, Fla. Const.; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.131(a).
In establishing such proof, the state is held to a burden of proof greater than that required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). If the state’s evidence, though sufficient to convict, “is arguably impeached in substantial respects by other evidence or is rendered doubtful by substantial contradictions and discrepancies in the state’s case,” State v. Perry, 605 So. 2d 94, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1992), that standard has not been met and the defendant is entitled to pretrial release as a matter of right.
In the instant case, the state’s evidence was that the offense occurred repeatedly within a specific month-ldng period, during which a defense witness testified that Petitioner had no contact with the victim; that it occurred in a new house, which another defense witness testified was not ready for occupancy and was not occupied until several months later; and that it did not come to light until Petitioner’s ex-wife, who is now seeking sole rather than joint custody of their children on the basis of the victim’s allegations, advised the victim to tell those allegations to her father, precipitating the instant prosecution.
As Petitioner’s evidence substantially contradicted and impeached the state’s case, we conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the presumption of his guilt was great. Accordingly, we grant the writ, and direct the trial court to release Petitioner on such bond and on such conditions as it may determine.
POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seymour v. State, 132 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…a defendant, then a trial court may properly find that the proof of guilt is not evident or the presumption of guilt is not great. Elderbroom, 621 So. 2d at 520 (citing State v. Perry, 605 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)); see also Hoskins v. Knowles, 757 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (concluding the state failed to establish that the proof of guilt was evident or the presumption great, where the accused’s evidence substantially contradicted and impeached the state’s case); Kirkland v. Fortune, 661 So. 2d 395,…
Authorities Cited
- Robertson v. State, 605 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- State v. Perry, 605 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Ronan v. Ronan, 621 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)