From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Casey

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 24, 2002
821 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

No. 3D02-04.

July 24, 2002.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami Dade County, Daryl Trawick, Judge.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and John D. Barker, Assistant State Attorney, for appellant.

Hirsch Markus, and Milton Hirsch, Miami, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, SHEVIN, and SORONDO, JJ.


We reverse the order granting the defendant's motion to suppress. A trial court is required to accept evidence which has not been impeached, discredited, controverted, contradictory within itself or physically impossible. See State v. Moreno, 558 So.2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); State v. G.H., 549 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Here, the only evidence presented at the suppression hearing was the testimony of the police officers. The testimony of the police officers was not impeached, discredited, controverted, contradictory within itself or physically impossible. Therefore the trial court was required to accept this evidence, and it was error to grant the motion to. suppress. See State v. Fernandez, 526 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse the order below.

Reversed.


Summaries of

State v. Casey

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 24, 2002
821 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

State v. Casey

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. SCAN CASEY, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jul 24, 2002

Citations

821 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

State v. Wong

Id. Because the trial court was required to accept this evidence, it was error to grant the motion to…

State v. Ojeda

As in Case No. 05–37152 discussed above, the record does not reveal any evidence that Detective Orenstein's…