THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Injunctions -- Stalking -- Harassment -- Trial court erred by entering injunction for protection against stalking where evidence was insufficient to establish at least two separate instances of harassment as required by statute -- Communications respondent sent to petitioner on the same day through different messaging applications constituted a single incident where messages were transmitted within minutes of each other, contained substantially identical content, and arose from single triggering event -- Remaining alleged acts of disparaging petitioner in social media posts and contacting petitioner about transferring child support payments did not combine to form a second qualifying instance of harassment where incidents were discrete and disconnected, not part of a unified course of conduct -- Furthermore, evidence was insufficient to establish that complained-of conduct would cause substantial emotional distress under an objective standard -- Record also demonstrated that communications at issue, even if contentious or poorly worded, were not undertaken without purpose, but rather were rooted in identifiable, legitimate objectives falling outside of the statutory definition of “harassment”
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Defamation -- Action alleging that defendant had defamed plaintiff during homeowner's association meeting by telling those present that plaintiff had threatened to shoot defendant and that it was being investigated as a hate crime -- Trial court erred by granting defendant's motion for summary judgment based on determination that, as a matter of law, defendant acted reasonably in believing what he was told by an unidentified code enforcement officer, who allegedly told defendant about the shooting threat, and an unidentified deputy sheriff, who allegedly told defendant that the threat was being investigated as a hate crime -- There were disputed issues of material fact and jury questions about whether defendant could be found liable where defendant offered no proof, other than his self-serving statements, that any deputy or code enforcement officer made the subject statements at all, much less in the manner he passed them along to those present at the HOA meeting
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Trusts -- Trustees -- Breach of fiduciary duty -- Jurisdiction -- Non-residents -- Minimum contacts -- Action alleging that trustee, a Nevada corporation, had breached its fiduciary duties by either facilitating or failing to prevent co-trustee's misconduct -- Trial court erred by denying trustee's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction -- Non-resident trustee not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because it did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting business in Florida where, although trustee agreed to serve as co-trustee of a trust created by a Florida resident, trustee was not a party to the trust instrument when it was executed in Florida, and no evidence indicates that trustee solicited the appointment as co-trustee or otherwise intentionally sought to create a relationship with Florida -- Trust's choice-of-law provision is immaterial because a choice-of-law provision alone is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant -- Trustee did not create a significant relationship with Florida by sending trust-related communications to co-trustee while co-trustee was a resident -- Furthermore, those communications were unrelated to plaintiff's cause of action
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Counsel -- Waiver -- Renewal of offer -- Trial court fundamentally erred by failing to renew offer of counsel prior to sentencing defendant for first-degree murder conviction -- Court rejects argument that error was harmless because defendant was subject to mandatory life sentence -- A defendant has the right to be represented by counsel even when a defendant faces a mandatory or predetermined sentence -- Furthermore, length of sentence is not the only issue that may arise at sentencing hearing
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Murder -- Post conviction DNA testing -- Results -- Appeals -- Jurisdiction -- Challenge to order denying defendant's request to be provided with post conviction DNA testing data necessary for analysis and opinion by qualified bioinformaticist after testing performed by private lab selected by state was unable to obtain conclusive results from victim's underwear because of the limited nature of the sample and that lab's testing capabilities -- Court has jurisdiction to review order because order constituted a final order disposing of a rule 3.853 motion which “adversely affected” defendant -- Trial court erred by denying defendant's request -- Section 925.11 provides that the results of DNA testing ordered by the court shall be provided to the sentenced defendant -- “Results” in instant case include the underlying testing data and not simply the private lab's report that testing was “inconclusive,” particularly where the lab and FDLE lack the capability to provide the analysis and testing that FDLE itself suggested may be possible -- Court rejects argument that defendant was required to demonstrate how requested analysis by bioinformaticist would lead to his exoneration -- Imposition of exoneration-based burden at this stage has no basis in section 925.11 or rule 3.853 -- Once trial court found that defendant had met the requirements of the statute and rule and granted his motion for post conviction DNA testing, defendant was not required to establish anything else to receive complete results of that testing -- Public records -- No abuse of discretion in denying defendant's public records request, which sought information about private lab's testing process and protocols, where defendant sought information only as possible impeachment evidence and failed to show how testing process and protocols could relate to colorable claim for relief
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Post conviction relief -- Newly discovered evidence -- Counsel -- Ineffectiveness -- Trial court erred by summarily denying facially sufficient claim of newly discovered evidence alleging that counsel had failed to convey a favorable plea offer -- Trial counsel's knowledge of a plea offer is not imputed to the defendant for purposes of the newly discovered fact exception of rule 3.850(b)(1) -- While motion was not properly sworn and was facially deficient for failure to attach affidavit of trial counsel, defendant should have been granted at least one opportunity to amend to correct deficiencies -- Conflict certified
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Vehicle -- Traffic stop -- Careless driving -- Probable cause -- No error in denying motion to suppress evidence seized at a traffic stop for careless driving -- Officer had probable cause to stop defendant for careless driving where officer observed defendant's vehicle traveling faster than surrounding vehicles and passing those vehicles in opposite lane on a narrow street heavily congested with pedestrians, many of whom were likely intoxicated -- Although officer could not quantify defendant's speed, officer was permitted to rely on visual observations and experience when concluding that defendant's vehicle was traveling at an unsafe speed -- Absence of an express prohibition on passing did not negate the officer's reasonable conclusion that the maneuver was imprudent -- Passing in the opposite lane may constitute careless driving, even where technically permissible, if the surrounding conditions render the maneuver unsafe -- Actual harm or near collision with pedestrians or other vehicles was not required in order to find that defendant endangered persons or property
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Death penalty -- Untimely notice -- Mental health examination -- Appeals -- Certiorari -- Trial court departed from essential requirements of the law by denying defendant's motion to preclude state's mental health examination of defendant where state did not file notice of intent to seek death penalty within 45 days of defendant's arraignment in 2009 -- Court rejects argument that current version of rule 3.202 should apply to defendant's Hurst resentencing because post conviction court's order granting resentencing restarted clock for purposes of timely notice under revised rule -- Even under revised rule, timely notice for purposes of death penalty is 45 days from arraignment -- As state did not file timely notice of intent to seek death penalty, it is precluded from conducting its own mental health evaluation of defendant
VIEW OPINION (login required)