Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

767 So. 2d 451

Docket No. SC96852.

Friedrich v. State

Joy FRIEDRICH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 7, 2000.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2000-09-07

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Grant v. State (2000), 780 So. 2d 45 - Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates (2001)

1 federal appellate · 115 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We decline to address the other claim ... because it is outside the scope of the certified question and was not the basis of our discretionary review. As a rule, we eschew addressing a claim that was not first subjected to the crucible of the jurisdictional process set forth in article V, section 3, Florida Constitution.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Tucker v. Dept. of Corrections

Relies on 634 So. 2d 158 - Love v. Garcia · Friedrich v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-09-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard W. Springer and Catherine Mazzullo of Springer & Springer, Palm Springs, Florida, for Petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Celia Terenzio, Assistant Attorney General, Bureau Chief, and Robert R. Wheeler, *452 Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, Florida, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We have for review a decision on the following question certified to be of great public importance:

DOES LOVE V. GARCIA,634 So.2d 158 (Fla.1994), APPLY IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS WHERE BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST RESULTS ARE OFFERED AS PROOF TO ESTABLISH AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, IF THE BLOOD ALCOHOL TESTS WERE ADMINISTERED BY HOSPITAL PERSONNEL FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT PURPOSES?

¶5Friedrich v. State,743 So.2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶6We answered an identical certified question affirmatively in Baber v. State, No. SC96010, ___ So.2d ___, 2000 WL 1227764 (Fla. Aug. 31, 2000). Because the district court's decision is consistent with our decision in Baber, we approve the decision below.[1]

¶7It is so ordered.

¶8WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶9[1] We decline to address additional issues raised by petitioner as being outside the scope of the certified question and decision below.

/767/so2d/451 · .json · Public domain