Case Name: POLINSKI v STATE OF FLORIDA
Court: Florida Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-11-23
Citations: 32 Fla. Supp. 2d 151
Docket Number: Case No. 88-15-AP
Parties: POLINSKI v STATE OF FLORIDA
Judges: Before FREDERICK B. TYGART, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Florida Supplement Second
Volume: 32
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
POLINSKI v STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 88-15-AP
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Duval County
November 23, 1988
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Lou O. Frost, Public Defender and James T. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Edward T. Austin, State Attorney and Connie R. Clay, Assistant State Attorney, for appellee.
Before FREDERICK B. TYGART, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Before the court is an appeal in which the issue presented was whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to dismiss because of double jeopardy. Appellant maintains that the State engaged in either grossly negligent or bad faith conduct which caused a mistrial.
The record indicates that the Appellant filed a motion in limine to prohibit any evidence that Appellant's license was suspended which was granted. During trial the prosecutor asked a general question of the arresting officer, to wit: "What did you do then with respect to the Defendant?" to which the officer replied, "I approached the defendant who was witting in his automobile and asked him for his driver's license. He did not have a driver's license." The Appellant then objected and at side bar motioned for a mistrial.
The State had instructed the officer not to mention the Appellant's suspended license and the officer did not. This colloquy does not evidence any gross negligence or deliberate bad faith conduct on the part of the State. At worst, it was an inexperienced police officer doing his best to accurately answer a general question pertaining to the course of events on the date in question.
The trial court's denial of the appellant's motion to dismiss was proper. Hutchens v State, 517 So.2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.