State burned to prove evidence?

[smlytle]

State burden to prove evidence?

State Burden to Prove Evidence

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

In a municipal ordinance or misdemeanor case in the state of Florida, does a case being tried in court require evidence to prove that the accused defendent is guilty. More specifically, is the testimony of a LEO enough to convict a defendent alone? This relates specifically to an open container charge. If no evidence is listed on a Notice to Appear (which states all evidence must be listed) and there was no testing done to verify that the contents of the alleged container were actually alcohol (must be more than 3.2% as per city ordinance) can this be substantiated in court?

I welcome all advice. (I do appreciate if the user FlyingRon would not comment on this as he has been quite condescending in another question I have posted on here).

 

[mlane58]

Duplicate Post

 

[smlytle]

Not duplicate

This isnt duplicate. The other post pertains to the validity of the notice to appear without any evidence.

This post is specific to the validity of charges with the only evidence being the testimony of the LEO.

Thank you though. I would prefer if someone familiar with Florida law were to answer.

 

[mlane58]

It most certainly is duplicate. Keep all your posts together when they are on the same issue.

 

[smlytle]

Youre Right

It seems trivial to argue with any post ont his website since everyone feels they are right.

If anyone else could help on this issue I would appreciate it.

 

[FlyingRon]

Ah, so you come here two days ago and YOU KNOW how the website has been working for over five years? You are the one who gets pissy when someone says something snide after they answer you TWICE when you refuse to believe the answer they gave you to the question the first time. Hurl insults at me and lock your thread.

First off, the OC violation is not a misdemeanor (if you are talking about the state statute). The state statute doesn't give a rats ass about 3.2% either. If you were charged with something else, you have to tell us. We're not clairvoyant.

Second, as I told you before (as did another senior poster here), EVIDENCE IS NOT REQUIRED when you have eye witnesses. Witness testimony is more than compelling enough to convict you of a misdemeanor, let alone a traffic violation.

As I told you twice already. The cop will testify you had a cup of beer. Unless you have something that impunes him as a witness (unlikely), that's all that will needed to convict.

 

[Zigner]

It seems trivial to argue with any post ont his website since everyone feels they are right.

If anyone else could help on this issue I would appreciate it.

I have a great suggestion.

Keep it all in the same thread - don't make duplicate threads!

 

[smlytle]

Thank you

Thank you for blantantly disregarding what I asked in the post Ron.

To answer your question, No, I was not charged with anything besides a municipal ordinance violation of an open container.

Regardless, I would like someone who is familiar with Florida state law to answer, rather than you Ron. However, I do thank you for your persistence.

I already pleaded "not guilty" and will be attending court on the 17th. I will be sure to let you know how that goes either way and will give you a court case to reference, so you can help people in the future. I hope I am able to beat it, as the charge is quite frivalous and a direct result of the "zero tolerance" they were trying to enforce to tone down the Gasparilla Parade. Unfortunatley, I live in the parade zone and had to deal with this a block from my house. I was merely trying to get some help from this site so that I could be prepared when I walked in.

I feel I have a better chance of beating this than most, mainly because most other people who came to court were wearing shorts, looked grungy, and were just not prepared for the day. I, however, wore a suit and was prepared as I am a professional and understand you need to dress the part. Accordingly, I have researched this issue quite a bit and feel I have a case to fight. One thing on my side (which may just slow the process) is that I sent a certified letter to the Prosecutor and Clerk of Court requesting Dsicovery of Evidence and have yet to see anything in return (the letter template came from legal library downtown so I know it was formatted ocrrectly). Being that the court dat is 5 days from now, they have little time to get that back to me.

I am interested to see how this goes and really am just looking for advice and help, nothing more.

 

[>Charlotte<]

I am interested to see how this goes and really am just looking for advice and help, nothing more.

You're not looking for help, you're looking for someone to tell you you're right.

If you have no regard for FlyingRon's correct answer, why should any of the rest of us waste our time?

 

[Zigner]

...EVIDENCE IS NOT REQUIRED when you have eye witnesses.

I'd like to clarify this: Eye witness testimony IS evidence. And, as the eye witness is LISTED on the citation, the point is moot.

 

[CdwJava]

In a municipal ordinance or misdemeanor case in the state of Florida, does a case being tried in court require evidence to prove that the accused defendent is guilty.

Physical evidence is not required.

The state must prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt to the trier of fact (a judge in a court trial, and a jury in a jury trial) that you are guilty of the offense. This can be done through statements just as easily as physical evidence. It depends on the matter at hand. In most lesser cases such as possession of liquor, all that will be required is the officer's statement indicating he saw the possession and that it smelled like booze.

More specifically, is the testimony of a LEO enough to convict a defendent alone?

Yes. Look at traffic cases, just to name one type of case. Many cases are made solely or in large part as a result of the statement of an officer or other witness.

This relates specifically to an open container charge. If no evidence is listed on a Notice to Appear (which states all evidence must be listed) and there was no testing done to verify that the contents of the alleged container were actually alcohol (must be more than 3.2% as per city ordinance) can this be substantiated in court?

You are certainly free to refute the officer's statement and argue that what he smelled was not beer or whatever, but some other substance that certainly smelled like the alcohol in question. Then, the trier of fact, will make a decision as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if the judge or jury believes that you had alcohol in the cup, you will be found guilty. if they find that you raised sufficient doubt that there might be alcohol int he cup, you will walk.

As for the discovery question, if you have not received a response to a properly formatted and served request for discovery, then you can object to any physical evidence presented by the state at the trial if it is an item you requested in discovery. It could be that what you requested does not exist.

 

[garrula lingua]

They'll probably provide the police report (the discovery) at the arraignment.

Carl and Ron are, as usual, both right.

If you don't like Ron givng you accurate advice and truth, why bother asking any questions ??
We won't do any better.

 

[smlytle]

Not Guilty

In case you guys were wondering how the case went...

I ended up pleading not guilty and fighting it. I won.

The case number is 10-CM-002609 .

Search for clerk of courts, Hillsborough County, FL.

Once they update the system you can read whatever you want.

An officers testimony without evidence is not enough to convict. Two officers showed up to testify they saw me. They said the beer was inf asct an alcoholic beverage because they knew from smell and could justify their expertise by life experience. My case was if they could smell it was alcohol to tell me the smell differenc between a nonalcoholic beer and an alcoholic one. Obviously there is none.

Without the can to prove their case that it was an alcoholic beverage they could no prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had in fact been drinking an alcohlic beverage.

Thanks for your help anyway and I hope this information helps on your future advice.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Although the record will say it was dismissed (for any number of reasons), it isn't going to confirm what you're claiming. But thanks anyway.

Quite a little history you've got there, Stephen.

 

[GotSmart]

In case you guys were wondering how the case went...

I ended up pleading not guilty and fighting it. I won.

The case number is 10-CM-002609 .

Search for clerk of courts, Hillsborough County, FL.

Once they update the system you can read whatever you want.

An officers testimony without evidence is not enough to convict. Two officers showed up to testify they saw me. They said the beer was inf asct an alcoholic beverage because they knew from smell and could justify their expertise by life experience. My case was if they could smell it was alcohol to tell me the smell differenc between a nonalcoholic beer and an alcoholic one. Obviously there is none.

Without the can to prove their case that it was an alcoholic beverage they could no prove beyond reasonable doubt that I had in fact been drinking an alcohlic beverage.

Thanks for your help anyway and I hope this information helps on your future advice.

I can bring up at least six people from the local bars that can identify the brand and percentage of a beer from the smell.

Obviously the judge did not want to deal with this.