Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

411 So. 2d 376

Docket No. 81-677.

State v. Oberholtzer

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Barry OBERHOLTZER, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 31, 1982.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1982-03-31

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 1991

18 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(d) Traverse or Demurrer. The State may traverse or demur to a motion to dismiss which alleges factual matters. Factual matters alleged in a motion to dismiss shall be deemed admitted unless specifically denied by the State in such traverse. The court may receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision on the motion. A motion to dismiss under paragraph (c)(4) of this rule shall be denied if the State filed a traverse which with specificity denied under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss. Such demurrer or traverse shall be filed a reasonable time before the hearing on the motion to dismiss.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 488 So. 2d 668 - State v. Castellan

Relies on Ellis v. State · State v. Wright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-03-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*377 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Trela J. White and Stewart J. Bellus, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Kerry J. Nahoom, Winter Park, for appellee.

¶3DELL, Judge.

¶4Appellee was indicted for the first degree murder of his wife. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him. To this motion, the State traversed. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(d). The lower court found that the traverse was insufficient to place material facts in controversy and therefore granted appellee's motion. The State contends that the lower court's order was erroneous. We agree and reverse.

¶5The only issue presented for our determination is whether the State's traverse to appellee's motion to dismiss was sufficient to require the lower court's denial of that motion. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(d) provides that such a motion "shall be denied if the State files a traverse which with specificity denies under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss." We hold that the State's traverse placed material facts in issue.

¶6It is unnecessary to delve into the circumstances of this case in reaching our conclusion. Once the State files a traverse as required by the aforementioned rule, a trial court has no alternative but to deny a motion to dismiss. The State is under no obligation to present additional facts consistent with guilt. Its only burden is to specifically deny the material facts as set forth in the motion to dismiss. Ellis v. State,346 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

¶7We hold that the depiction of events prior to the crime in question, as contained in the State's traverse, as well as its denial of appellee's exculpating account of those events, was sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss. See, State v. Wright,386 So.2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The State's traverse contains abundant allegations which, if believed by a jury, are consistent with appellee's guilt. Whether such proof will be sufficient to convict is not an issue properly resolved at this time.

¶8REVERSED.

¶9BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

/411/so2d/376 · .json · Public domain