BOOKER T. RAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Trial court erred by refusing to resolve factual disputes on a suppression motion, instead deferring to the jury; reversed and remanded.
The trial judge, not the jury, bears the responsibility for resolving factual issues in ruling on a motion to suppress.
[1] In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial judge, not the jury, has the responsibility to resolve factual issues and credibility determinations.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“it is the responsibility of the trial judge, not that of the jury, to resolve factual issues”
Court's statement of the correct legal standard for suppression motions
Booker T. Ray was a passenger in a van that was searched, and items were found during that search. Ray moved to suppress the items found.…
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 Jury'S Role As Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
On appeal from his judgments and sentences for various offenses, Booker T. Ray challenges the denial of his motion to suppress items found during a search of the van in which he was a passenger. He argues in his first point on appeal that the trial court applied the wrong standard in ruling on his suppression motion. We agree and reverse on this issue and, therefore, decline to address his remaining points on appeal.
During the course of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court told Ray that the factual issues he was raising in the hearing “are to be brought before the trier of fact which is not me. The jury is going to be the trier of fact.” The trial court also stated that “the issues that you’re talking about are issues of credibility that are going to have to go in front of a jury.”
Ray correctly argues, and the State concedes, that in ruling on a motion to suppress, it is the responsibility of the trial judge, not that of the jury, to resolve factual issues. See Dillow v. State, 884 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Vasta v. State, 662 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Moore v. State, 647 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Carter v. State, 428 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The trial court in this case improperly abdicated its role in resolving factual issues raised by the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. State, 647 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Carter v. State, 428 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Vasta v. State, 662 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Wells v. Crosby, 884 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Dillow v. State, 884 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)