Case ID: fla-supp-2d_38/html/0024-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FERRO and UNGARO concur.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF FLORIDA v SWEENEY
    Case No. 88-206-AC
    Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County
    January 17, 1990
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Nick Moudios, Assistant State Attorney, for appellant.
    Robert S. Shapiro, for appellee.
    Before UNGARO, DONNER, FERRO, JJ.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

FERRO and UNGARO concur.

The state appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing the charges in a D.U.I. prosecution. The dismissal was based upon the loss of the videotape by the police officers. The trial court specifically found that the videotape contained exculpatory material and dismissed the charges.

The trial court properly conducted a pre-trial hearing at which evidence was presented establishing that the “lost” videotape did contain exculpatory material. That the videotape contained evidence that was pertinent to the Defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Therefore, the trial court’s order dismissing the charges is hereby affirmed. See United States v Argus, All U.S. 97, 100 S.Ct. 2392 (1976); United States v Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (1985); California v Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S.Ct. 2528 (1984); United States v Weisz, 718 F.2d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1983); James v State, 453 So.2d 786 (Fla. 1984); Salvatore v State, 366 So.2d 745 (Fla. 1979); Farrell v State, 317 So.2d 143 (Fla. App. 1975); and Bade v State, 20 Fla. Supp.2d 149 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 1986). Affirmed. DONNER, J. Dissents