Case ID: so2d_442/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Hoyt Vernon HARRISON, a/k/a James Harrison, Sr., and Patricia Wolack, Respondents.
    No. 83-88.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Dec. 14, 1983.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Max Rudmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
    J. David Bogenschutz of Varón & Stahl, P.A., Hollywood, for respondent Harrison.
    Robert M. Leen of Leen and Schneider, Hollywood, for respondent Patricia Wolack.
   PER CURIAM.

Based upon the authority of Novo v. Scott, 438 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1983) we grant the state’s petition for certiorari and quash the trial court’s order which held that section 914.04, Florida Statutes (Supp.1982) is unconstitutional. We adopt the rationale of our sister court and “hold that section 914.04 is constitutional and affords a witness derivative-use immunity.” Novo v. Scott, supra.

HERSEY, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.