Site Overlay

AGENCJA INNOWACJI oraz Partnerzy to zespół fachowców pomagających w pozyskaniu bezzwrotnych dotacji z UE. Analitycy i specjaliści od zarządzania wprowadzą Twoją Firmę na wyższy poziom.

Podnosimy wartość firm poprzez kompleksowe i profesjonalne wsparcie procesów handlowych. Szczególną uwagę przykładamy do wysokiej jakości świadczonych usług.

Jutro Twojej firmy zaczyna się dziś!

In criminal law, defense lawyers can file a motion in which they request a law from the law enforcement authorities. However, prosecutors cannot demand the same from the defense. This request can be part of a collection movement, an in limine movement or a similar movement. 8. The immediate application shall be made in accordance with Rule 3.140(n), Fla. R. Crim. P., in which it is stated in part: “The court shall order on application. an explanation of the details if the . Information. not to inform the defendant sufficiently of the details of the offence for the accused to prepare his defence. Id.

(emphasis added). With all due respect, the position that the defendant can find the details of the discovery does not meet the requirements of the rule. 9. In addition, Rule 3.140(n), Fla. R. Crim. P. states that “the establishment of the details must indicate as precisely as possible the place, date and any other essential facts of the alleged offence which are expressly requested and known to the prosecutor, including the names of the persons who are to be deceived. Justified doubts as to the interpretation of this rule are dispelled in favour of the defendant. Id. (emphasis added). 10.

“In this court, the rule is well established that an indictment must invoke any necessary element which constitutes the offence complained of and that no such element is left to the conclusion.” Smith v. State, 78 So. 530, 532 (Fla. 1918) (emphasis added). 11. In Simpson v. State, 176 So. 515, 517 (Fla. 1937), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had the right to be informed of the nature and reason for the charges against him. The court added: “If the information or indictment does not clearly and sufficiently accuse the accused of the crime so that he knows the nature and reason for the charges against him, he is entitled to his release.” ID.

12. The fifth DCA`s opinion in State v. Thomas, 622 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), is particularly instructive in this regard. Thomas was charged with burglary (entering an apartment with intent to commit a crime) and filed a request for a statement detailing the crime he allegedly wanted to commit in the apartment. 13. Thomas` application was granted by the Court of First Instance, which “ordered the State to provide, within five days, a precise description of the crime thomas intended to commit at the subject`s home”. Id. at p. 175.

In response to that order, `the [r]athär State has filed as an indication of a particular offence an exhaustive list of the [17] offences which Thomas may have intended to commit`. Id. 14. Thomas then requested that the information “which the court of first instance granted in understandable frustration” be rejected. Although Thomas` court concluded that this appeal was too extreme a punishment, it concluded in the circumstances: “Although any information accusing the burglary does not have to indicate the crime that the accused intends to commit, the state was required to provide such clarification at Thomas` request in a timely manner and by order of the trial court before the thomas case was brought before the courts.” Id. at 175-76. 15. In the present case, in which a request was made in good time, the defendant, like Thomas, is entitled to “a precise description of the crime” which he intended to commit, both with regard to Count III and the specific offences or offences which the defendant allegedly “seduced, solicited, attracted or attracted or attempted to seduce”, “a person, who is considered a parent, guardian or guardian of a child to request, attract or induce”, to agree to participate; and with respect to count IV, the designation of the specific offence or offences for which the accused would have gone to commit after meeting with a minor to commit it.

16. That conclusion is confirmed by an examination of the selection board`s standard instruction for Heads III and IV. Element 3, as Chief III (Instruction 11.17(b), Fla. Std. Jury Inst. Crim.), and element 4, as for Chief IV (statement 11.17(d), Fla. Std. Jury Inst.

Crim.), are identical and read as follows: (defendant) [seduced] [sought] [attracted] [tempted] [attempted] [to seduce] [bait] [lure] [seduce] a [parent] [guardian] [guardian] [guardian of [(victim)] [person considered to be [a parent] [guardian] [guardian of (victim)], the participation of (victim) in a described in (any unlawful act, as charged in the indictment or information under section 794) Act, 800, 827 or other illegal sexual acts). 17. The order clearly calls for the inclusion of “other unlawful sexual conduct” in the jury`s indictment in the manner in which he is “charged in the indictment or in the information.” Id. (emphasis added). . . .