From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Domenech

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 8, 1988
533 So. 2d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

No. 88-1466.

November 8, 1988.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Janet Reno, State Atty. and Penny H. Brill, Asst. State Atty., for petitioner.

Gregory C. Denaro, Miami, Richard Docobo, Coral Gables, for respondents.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.


The subpoenas issued below at the behest of the defendants were directed to witnesses whose supposed testimony was affirmatively shown to bear no legal pertinence whatever to the issues in the case and thus could not be of any potential assistance in the legitimate defense of the pending charges. See Mazepa v. State, 439 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Mesa, 395 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). The trial judge therefore erroneously refused to quash the subpoenas, see Kridos v. Vinskus, 483 So.2d 727, 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), and the order to that effect is for that reason itself quashed.

CERTIORARI GRANTED.


Summaries of

State v. Domenech

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 8, 1988
533 So. 2d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

State v. Domenech

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER, v. LUIS A. DOMENECH, AND LORENZO…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 8, 1988

Citations

533 So. 2d 896 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Citing Cases

Joseph v. State

On the second point, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge issuing the protective order. See…