In MORENO-GONZALEZ v. STATE, No. SC09-2163 (Fla. Jul. 7, 2011) the Court held that failure of a police officer to sign the affidavit submitted to a trial court in application for a search warrant did not invalidate the application where the officer had initialed each page of the affidavit and swore to the truth of the affidavit before the judge who issued the search warrant. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant be supported by oath or affirmation; it does not require an affidavit. The requirements for an affidavit are set out in Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. and in § 933.06 Florida Statutes (2007). The purpose of the requirement that affidavits in support of search warrants be sworn is to render law enforcement officers subject to charges of perjury for false statements that are offered under oath.
Here the officer swore to the truthfulness of all of her statements in the affidavit before the actual judge who signed the search warrant. Therefore the purpose of the requirement was satisfied.
In D.J. v. STATE, No. SC10-1852 (Fla. Jul. 7, 2011), the Court held that to prove trespass on school grounds, the state must prove that the person who ordered the Defendant to leave the school grounds had authority granted by the school principal. No such evidence was presented at the bench trial in this case. The Court held that because an essential element of the offense was not supported by competent, substantial evidence, the conviction must be vacated.
In WYATT v. STATE, No. SC08-655 (Fla. Jul. 8, 2011), the Court addressed comparative bullet lead analysis (CBLA), which was a forensic technique formerly admissible in evidence but which has now been established to not be reliable science. Slip opinion 13-21.
In VANTINE v. STATE, No. 2D10-2335 (Fla. 2d DCA Jul. 6, 2011), the court held that once a trial court has imposed a youthful offender sentence, it must continue that status on resentencing after violation of the defendant's youthful offender commitment. Youthful offender status can not be revoked upon violation of probation.
On motion for rehearing in D.J.P. v. STATE, No. 2D10-2439 (Fla. 2d DCA Jul. 8, 2011), the juvenile Defendant had admitted committing offenses and attempted to reserve his right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress his confession. The State noted that there was no stipulation that the motion was dispositive, and asserted that there were other witnesses who could identify the Defendant. The DCA held that the motion was not dispositive because the State could go forward at trial even if the Defendant had prevailed on the appeal of the trial court's order.
In FOWLER v. STATE, No. 1D10-5133 (Fla. 1st DCA Jul. 7, 2011), at a jury trial a prosecutor asked the Defendant whether he believed that two of the state's witnesses had fabricated portions of their testimony.
The DCA held "[s]uch questioning is improper." Slip opinion at 2. In closing argument the prosecutor stated: "Isn't it reasonable to believe that a law abiding citizen would run out to the police and say hey, I got to tell you something. There's a gun in here that was used in this armed robbery. And these guys, I want to tell you who they are. Did he do that? No, he didn't." The DCA held that such argument to the effect that the Defendant failed to proclaim is innocence when the police were investigating a robbery is improper; the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof to the Defendant. Id.
