Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

446 So. 2d 1186

Docket No. 83-1932.

Chapman v. State

Ward William CHAPMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 21, 1984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-03-21

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 2003

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(h) Motion to Suppress Evidence in Unlawful Search. ..... (2) Contents of Motion. Every motion to suppress evidence shall clearly state the particular evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based. (3) Hearing. Before hearing evidence, the court shall determine if the motion is legally sufficient. If it is not, the motion shall be denied. If the court hears the motion on its merits, the defendant shall present evidence supporting his position and the state may offer rebuttal evidence. (4) Time for Filing. The motion to suppress shall be made before trial unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court may entertain the motion or an appropriate objection at the trial.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Gadson v. State, 841 So. 2d 469 - State v. Hernandez

“must clearly state the reasons for suppression and also give a general statement of facts in support thereof as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(2).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gadson v. State

Relies on Herring v. State · Dean v. State · Barker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-03-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Alan I. Karten, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Russell S. Bohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3*1187 LETTS, Judge.

¶4The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and driving under the influence. A motion to suppress physical evidence was filed and the trial court denied it without granting a hearing on the motion, over objection by defense counsel. We agree with the defendant and reverse.

¶5Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h) and (i) govern motions to suppress. Under these two sections, a motion can be summarily denied if it is legally insufficient. Although the defendant asserts that there is no case law defining the term "legally sufficient," several cases indicate that a motion must clearly state the reasons for suppression and also give a general statement of facts in support thereof as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(2). Herring v. State,394 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and Dean v. State,430 So.2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

¶6The motion here clearly does state the reasons for suppression and a general statement of facts in support thereof, Barker v. State,438 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court for a hearing in accordance herewith.

¶7REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶8BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

/446/so2d/1186 · .json · Public domain