A/h Freak Jury T Ime

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You Be The Judge.

Here's the deal. A pert 16 year old girl ran over a homeless woman and left the scene of the collision. The girl went to her $1,000,000 home and didnt call police. Later, her daddy and lawyer called the detective, the girl was interviewed and confirmed she was driving the car. She made no other statements to the detective.

A traffic camera caught her car on tape close to the collision site. The victim gave a report to the cops before dying. The victim had paint on her body and clothes from the kid's car. A witness saw the wreck but became confused and chased the wrong car around town. The girl's insurance company sent 100K to the victim's family.

But every charge was dropped because the detective cant prove the kid was driving the car, and Florida Law says information provided by suspects, on accident reports, is inadmissable in court. That is, the cop has to see you or get testimony from a witness who saw you driving....like a passenger.

 

[R. Richard]

JBJ: You're jumping to conclusions here.

You ASSUME that a 16 year old girl ran over a homeless woman and left the scene of the collision.

Let's assume, as seems very likely, that someone ran over a homeless woman and left the scene of the collision. Let's further assume that a traffic camera caught a car with an identifiable license plate on tape close to the collision site. [The scumbags did contact the owner ofthe car.] The victim gave a report to the cops before dying. [I'm ASSUMING that the victim could provide little but the fact that she was run over by a car and no one stopped to help her.] The victim had paint on her body and clothes from the identified car.

It seems likely that the girl didn't call the scumbags. It also seems likely that later, her daddy and lawyer called the scumbags, that the girl was interviewed and confirmed that she was driving the car. It also seems likely that the girl made no other statements to the detective. [If there was a lawyer involved, the girl gave up the minimum.]

Now, before we lynch the girl, let's consider an alternate scenario. The girl is a 16-year-old minor. She is very likely dependent on her father for such things as food, shelter, medical, etc. If the girl is convicted in the death of the homeless person, it's likely she would receive 90 days or so, in juvie or home confinement if daddy has a good lawyer. Why is it that daddy wasn't driving the car and is using the child to shield himself from possible adult penalties?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

RICHARD

She was driving the car that hit the homeless woman. People lie all the time to protect others, but she said she was driving the car, and her car was caught on camera moments before the crash....it was an expressway off-ramp. Paint on the dead woman matched the car's paint. The insurance company already paid up, they must think she did it.

We can imagine anything, but the facts is the facts. And yes, her lawyer did shut her up.

 

[sr71plt]

Richard is right and you are missing the point. Unless the girl admitted she was driving the car (or there's enough proof as yet to take that to court)--which is apparently not the case or two-thirds of your narrative would be irrelevant--this has just been assumed here. Which is just a form of vigilantism.

Your poll choices jump the gun on the circumstances. First a trial on who it was who ran over the woman (doesn't make a hill of beans whether the woman was homeless or not--or even a woman as opposed to a man or child). If charges haven't been made, the investigation just hasn't dug deep enough.

All of the rest of the stuff you include comes after trying to pin down who to indict and try. There's nothing yet to go to a jury with.

That isn't in the least a case of giving the perpetrator a pass, no matter how much money they have.

 

[jomar]

Let me get this straight. She admits to driving the car that was captured on camera and did not make a statement regarding hitting the woman? And the video timing and paint evidence is not enough?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JOMAR

She confirms she drove the car on or about the time the woman was hit. The was caught on video camera (with time stamp) exiting an expressway mere feet from where the woman was hit. No other car like it came thru the camera when the woman was hit, the dead woman identified the car and had matching paint on her.

The girl confirms she was the driver, but she made no other admissions, and the cops cant independently confirm her admission, and her admission isnt admissable as evidence in court.

There's no doubt about who killed the victim, its on video tape, plus the other evidence.

Florida Law sez you gotta fess up if you were the driver, but your confession is inadmissable as evidence of anything in a criminal court.

No! Its not enough because legally the police cant tie her to the car when it hit the pedestrian. I'm guessing she flew thru a stop sign where the off-ramp joins the street.

 

[sr71plt]

JOMAR

She confirms she drove the car on or about the time the woman was hit.

Ah, adding to the original posting now. How convenient--and typical.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MISTER SOFTEE

I take after the CIA. First they see WMDs everywhere in Iraq, then they cant find a goddamned one.

 

[sr71plt]

MISTER SOFTEE

I take after the CIA. First they see WMDs everywhere in Iraq, then they cant find a goddamned one.

*Laughs* They could see them originally, because they delivered most of them to Iraq; they didn't see them later because some of them had been sold, some used (on the Kurds), and some deteriorated because the Iraqis are clutzes. That doesn't mean the CIA didn't know they were gone, though (and, happily, you didn't claim that). I helped keep count of them as they disappeared.

The Bush administration was given accurate reports. This is all documented--even written in the public domain.

I'm not at all surprised you aren't up to date on what everyone else has known for years.

But it's pleasing that you apparently are trying to hide away this silly little irrelevant vigilantee poll of yours now, though.

 

[Handley_Page]

You Be The Judge.

Here's the deal. A pert 16 year old girl ran over a homeless woman and left the scene of the collision. The girl went to her $1,000,000 home and didnt call police. Later, her daddy and lawyer called the detective, the girl was interviewed and confirmed she was driving the car. She made no other statements to the detective.

A traffic camera caught her car on tape close to the collision site. The victim gave a report to the cops before dying. The victim had paint on her body and clothes from the kid's car. A witness saw the wreck but became confused and chased the wrong car around town. The girl's insurance company sent 100K to the victim's family.

But every charge was dropped because the detective cant prove the kid was driving the car, and Florida Law says information provided by suspects, on accident reports, is inadmissable in court. That is, the cop has to see you or get testimony from a witness who saw you driving....like a passenger.

Thank the Lord that is extremely rare in the UK.

"The victim had paint on her body and clothes from the kid's car." That forensic evidence and the cop-taken statement (dying declarations are taken as absolute), would be enough to throw away the key for a long, long time.

What's a child doing driving anyway ?

 

[SeaCat]

Interesting case JBJ.

There is some information missing here though.

Without that information I can't make an educated reply

Cat

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Thank the Lord that is extremely rare in the UK.

"The victim had paint on her body and clothes from the kid's car." That forensic evidence and the cop-taken statement (dying declarations are taken as absolute), would be enough to throw away the key for a long, long time.

What's a child doing driving anyway ?

To be honest, I think the big problem for the police and the rest is Daddy's wealth. Daddy has some major Bucks. When I worked for government I saw this happen a lot. There are some expensive lawyers in town who tag the sheriff for millions when his people screw up investigations. In this case the cops didnt even show up at the arraignment, so the judge tossed every charge out the window. The detective said he had no case and there was no point going to court.

If the defendant was a project nigger or country cracker, they woulda burned them.

 

[sr71plt]

Thank the Lord that is extremely rare in the UK.

"The victim had paint on her body and clothes from the kid's car." That forensic evidence and the cop-taken statement (dying declarations are taken as absolute), would be enough to throw away the key for a long, long time.

What's a child doing driving anyway ?

Don't sweat it; JBJ is making it up as he goes along to suit the outcome he seeks--which is to be provocative here.

I think the evidence he originally gave would get such a person indicted too. Just trying to get a rise out of folks.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MISTER SOFTEE

Take it to the bank no one will ever get a rise out of you.

 

[sr71plt]

MISTER SOFTEE

Take it to the bank no one will ever get a rise out of you.

Notice you're not providing any source citations for this thread. Could it be because the issue isn't concluded or isn't quite as described or could it be because you made it all up?

You got the attention you sought, so it's win for you, isn't it, big fella?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MISTER SOFTEE

Oh! I've told you about a dozen times I am not playing fool's errand with you. If you disagree with something refute it! But I do not intend to fetch bundles of crap for you to hoist your nose and turn thumbs down. We both know the deal with you. If you dont like what I post, go fuck yourself.

 

[sr71plt]

MISTER SOFTEE

Oh! I've told you about a dozen times I am not playing fool's errand with you. If you disagree with something refute it! But I do not intend to fetch bundles of crap for you to hoist your nose and turn thumbs down. We both know the deal with you. If you dont like what I post, go fuck yourself.

I have refuted this in the only way possible. If it doesn't exist as you described it, then it isn't something I can find. If you don't produce some evidence you haven't either misrepresented the scenario or have just made it up as one of your little lion pokes, then you'll produce it here. Until then, you've been fully refuted--and once again exposed as the fake you are.

 

[DeeZire]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1002541.ece

This looks like the article JBJ is referring to. It reads pretty much the way he recounted it. What he left out is that the gal is a cheerleader. No wonder she got off!

 

[sr71plt]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1002541.ece

This looks like the article JBJ is referring to. It reads pretty much the way he recounted it. What he left out is that the gal is a cheerleader. No wonder she got off!

Not quite. JBJ's version plays down both the admission of the girl that she ran over the woman (which is contained in paragraph one of the news report)--not just driving the car that day--and that no charges have been made for that yet (as I noted was probable, we're in the middle of this story, not at the end of it), and he misleads on what got the charge that actually has been pursued to this point kicked out of court--and why.

He goes after the judge in his poll, implying the case before him was more than it was--and ignoring that he dismissed the case that was before him (a ticket for careless driving--not for running over anyone) in keeping with established law--which judges are supposed to do--stay within the law themselves (Severmax would blow up and explode at this point of the story tailoring).

He also conveniently dropped the part that she could/very likely would be taken to court in a civil case and, more significantly, that the police were still trying to build a criminal case they could pursue under Florida law--that there was no statute of limitation on bringing a great charge to court. Ergo, once again, this is the middle of the story, not the conclusion JBJ implied.

The sticking point is Florida law, not either the specific incident or the relative position in society of the victim and apparent perpertrator (another JBJ embellishment for desired effect). And most certainly not any corruption or lack of due diligence on the part of either the police or the judge. Isn't JBJ a Floridian? Who ultimately is responsibile for Florida's laws. It's not a trick question; don't think too hard on this.

So, yet another story redone to achieve an effect and dropped here to entice writers of erotica (for some unknown reason) to get rabid over something that isn't quite what's reported. How LaJoke of JBJ.

Just another JBJ doctored time waster.

 

[R. Richard]

In the state of Florida, a juvenile is a human under the age of 18-years-old. Thus the driver is not a 'person,' but a juvenile. [It is true that some juveniles are tried as persons, the practice is practically limited to those who commit murder or crimes involving torture.]

Under Paragraph 316.027 (1)(a) or (b), it would appear that the juvenile would be guilty of, at maximum a felony of the third degree and probably a felony of the second degree. [It would be necessary to prove that the juvenile knew that the victim was dead. Since the victim survived long enough to give testimony, it's pretty much impossible to prove knowledge of death.] A felony of the second degree is punishable with up to 15 years in the slammer. However, said penalty of 15 years in the slammer is for a person [adult,] not a juvenile. JBJ can probably furnish the Florida case law, but the normal sentence for a juvenile would be 90 days or less. [The situation is that daddy driving could get daddy 15 years in the slammer. A juvenile driving could get maybe 90 days, or home detention with a good lawyer.

Read it and peep.


Hit and Run Laws in Florida

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

316.027 Crash involving death or personal injuries.--

(1)(a) The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting in injury of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062. Any person who willfully violates this paragraph is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting in the death of any person must immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash, or as close thereto as possible, and must remain at the scene of the crash until he or she has fulfilled the requirements of s. 316.062. Any person who willfully violates this paragraph is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) The department shall revoke the driver's license of the person so convicted.

(3) Every stop must be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary, and, if a damaged vehicle is obstructing traffic, the driver of the vehicle must make every reasonable effort to move the vehicle or have it moved so as not to obstruct the regular flow of traffic. Any person who fails to comply with this subsection shall be cited for a nonmoving violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318.

(4) A person whose commission of a noncriminal traffic infraction or any violation of this chapter or s. 1006.66 causes or results in the death of another person may, in addition to any other civil, criminal, or administrative penalty imposed, be required by the court to serve 120 community service hours in a trauma center or hospital that regularly receives victims of vehicle accidents, under the supervision of a registered nurse, an emergency room physician, or an emergency medical technician pursuant to a voluntary community service program operated by the trauma center or hospital.

History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 75-72; s. 5, ch. 76-31; s. 1, ch. 82-161; s. 51, ch. 89-282; s. 1, ch. 93-140; s. 9, ch. 94-306; s. 894, ch. 95-148; s. 5, ch. 96-350; s. 82, ch. 99-248; s. 956, ch. 2002-387.

316.062 Duty to give information and render aid.--

(1) The driver of any vehicle involved in a crash resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall give his or her name, address, and the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving, and shall upon request and if available exhibit his or her license or permit to drive, to any person injured in such crash or to the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the crash and shall give such information and, upon request, exhibit such license or permit to any police officer at the scene of the crash or who is investigating the crash and shall render to any person injured in the crash reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or the making of arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.

(2) In the event none of the persons specified are in condition to receive the information to which they otherwise would be entitled under subsection (1), and no police officer is present, the driver of any vehicle involved in such crash, after fulfilling all other requirements of s. 316.027 and subsection (1), insofar as possible on his or her part to be performed, shall forthwith report the crash to the nearest office of a duly authorized police authority and submit thereto the information specified in subsection (1).

(3) The statutory duty of a person to make a report or give information to a law enforcement officer making a written report relating to a crash shall not be construed as extending to information which would violate the privilege of such person against self-incrimination.

(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.

History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 13, ch. 91-255; s. 297, ch. 95-148; s. 84, ch. 99-248.

775.082 Penalties; applicability of sentencing structures; mandatory minimum sentences for certain reoffenders previously released from prison.--

(1) A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by death if the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death, otherwise such person shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be ineligible for parole.

(2) In the event the death penalty in a capital felony is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, the court having jurisdiction over a person previously sentenced to death for a capital felony shall cause such person to be brought before the court, and the court shall sentence such person to life imprisonment as provided in subsection (1). No sentence of death shall be reduced as a result of a determination that a method of execution is held to be unconstitutional under the State Constitution or the Constitution of the United States.

(3) A person who has been convicted of any other designated felony may be punished as follows:

(a)1. For a life felony committed prior to October 1, 1983, by a term of imprisonment for life or for a term of years not less than 30.

2. For a life felony committed on or after October 1, 1983, by a term of imprisonment for life or by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 40 years.

3. For a life felony committed on or after July 1, 1995, by a term of imprisonment for life or by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment.

(b) For a felony of the first degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 years or, when specifically provided by statute, by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment.

(c) For a felony of the second degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years.

(d) For a felony of the third degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.

(4) A person who has been convicted of a designated misdemeanor may be sentenced as follows:

(a) For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year;

(b) For a misdemeanor of the second degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days.

(5) Any person who has been convicted of a noncriminal violation may not be sentenced to a term of imprisonment nor to any other punishment more severe than a fine, forfeiture, or other civil penalty, except as provided in chapter 316 or by ordinance of any city or county.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the operation of any statute of this state authorizing a trial court, in its discretion, to impose a sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate period within minimum and maximum limits as provided by law, except as provided in subsection (1).

(7) This section does not deprive the court of any authority conferred by law to decree a forfeiture of property, suspend or cancel a license, remove a person from office, or impose any other civil penalty. Such a judgment or order may be included in the sentence.

(8)(a) The sentencing guidelines that were effective October 1, 1983, and any revisions thereto, apply to all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after October 1, 1983, and before January 1, 1994, and to all felonies, except capital felonies and life felonies, committed before October 1, 1983, when the defendant affirmatively selects to be sentenced pursuant to such provisions.

(b) The 1994 sentencing guidelines, that were effective January 1, 1994, and any revisions thereto, apply to all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after January 1, 1994, and before October 1, 1995.

(c) The 1995 sentencing guidelines that were effective October 1, 1995, and any revisions thereto, apply to all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after October 1, 1995, and before October 1, 1998.

(d) The Criminal Punishment Code applies to all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after October 1, 1998. Any revision to the Criminal Punishment Code applies to sentencing for all felonies, except capital felonies, committed on or after the effective date of the revision.

(e) Felonies, except capital felonies, with continuing dates of enterprise shall be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines or the Criminal Punishment Code in effect on the beginning date of the criminal activity.

(edited)

(10) The purpose of this section is to provide uniform punishment for those crimes made punishable under this section and, to this end, a reference to this section constitutes a general reference under the doctrine of incorporation by reference.

History.--s. 3, ch. 71-136; ss. 1, 2, ch. 72-118; s. 2, ch. 72-724; s. 5, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 1, ch. 83-87; s. 1, ch. 94-228; s. 16, ch. 95-184; s. 4, ch. 95-294; s. 2, ch. 97-239; s. 2, ch. 98-3; s. 10, ch. 98-204; s. 2, ch. 99-188; s. 3, ch. 2000-246; s. 1, ch. 2001-239; s. 2, ch. 2002-70; ss. 1, 2, ch. 2002-211.

775.15 Time limitations.--

(1)(a) A prosecution for a capital felony, a life felony, or a felony that resulted in a death may be commenced at any time. A prosecution for a felony that resulted in injury to any person, when such felony arises from the use of a "destructive device," as defined in s. 790.001, may be commenced within 10 years. If the death penalty is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, all crimes designated as capital felonies shall be considered life felonies for the purposes of this section, and prosecution for such crimes may be commenced at any time.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (7), a prosecution for a first or second degree felony violation of s. 794.011, if such crime is reported to a law enforcement agency within 72 hours after commission of the crime, may be commenced at any time. If such crime is not reported within 72 hours after the commission of the crime, the prosecution must be commenced within the time periods prescribed in subsection (2).

(c) A prosecution for perjury in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony may be commenced at any time.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions for other offenses are subject to the following periods of limitation:

(a) A prosecution for a felony of the first degree must be commenced within 4 years after it is committed.

(b) A prosecution for any other felony must be commenced within 3 years after it is committed.

(c) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the first degree must be commenced within 2 years after it is committed.

(d) A prosecution for a misdemeanor of the second degree or a noncriminal violation must be commenced within 1 year after it is committed.

(e) A prosecution for a felony violation of chapter 517 or s. 409.920 must be commenced within 5 years after the violation is committed.

(f) A prosecution for a felony violation of chapter 403 must be commenced within 5 years after the date of discovery of the violation.

(g) A prosecution for a felony violation of s. 825.102 or s. 825.103 must be commenced within 5 years after it is committed.

(h) A prosecution for a felony violation of ss. 440.105 and 817.234 must be commenced within 5 years after the violation is committed.

(3) If the period prescribed in subsection (2) has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for:

(a) Any offense, a material element of which is either fraud or a breach of fiduciary obligation, within 1 year after discovery of the offense by an aggrieved party or by a person who has a legal duty to represent an aggrieved party and who is himself or herself not a party to the offense, but in no case shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years.

(b) Any offense based upon misconduct in office by a public officer or employee at any time when the defendant is in public office or employment, within 2 years from the time he or she leaves public office or employment, or during any time permitted by any other part of this section, whichever time is greater.

(4) An offense is committed either when every element has occurred or, if a legislative purpose to prohibit a continuing course of conduct plainly appears, at the time when the course of conduct or the defendant's complicity therein is terminated. Time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed.

(5)(a) Prosecution on a charge on which the defendant has previously been arrested or served with a summons is commenced by the filing of an indictment, information, or other charging document.

(b) A prosecution on a charge on which the defendant has not previously been arrested or served with a summons is commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay. In determining what is reasonable, inability to locate the defendant after diligent search or the defendant's absence from the state shall be considered. The failure to execute process on or extradite a defendant in another state who has been charged by information or indictment with a crime in this state shall not constitute an unreasonable delay.

(c) If, however, an indictment or information has been filed within the time period prescribed in this section and the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside because of a defect in its content or form after the time period has elapsed, the period for commencing prosecution shall be extended 3 months from the time the indictment or information is dismissed or set aside.

(6) The period of limitation does not run during any time when the defendant is continuously absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state. This provision shall not extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than 3 years, but shall not be construed to limit the prosecution of a defendant who has been timely charged by indictment or information or other charging document and who has not been arrested due to his or her absence from this state or has not been extradited for prosecution from another state.

(7)(a) If the victim of a violation of s. 794.011, former s. 794.05, Florida Statutes 1995, s. 800.04, or s. 826.04 is under the age of 18, the applicable period of limitation, if any, does not begin to run until the victim has reached the age of 18 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Such law enforcement agency or other governmental agency shall promptly report such allegation to the state attorney for the judicial circuit in which the alleged violation occurred. If the offense is a first or second degree felony violation of s. 794.011, and the crime is reported within 72 hours after its commission, paragraph (1)(b) applies. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before December 31, 1984.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and paragraph (a) of this subsection, if the offense is a first degree felony violation of s. 794.011 and the victim was under 18 years of age at the time the offense was committed, a prosecution of the offense may be commenced at any time. This paragraph applies to any such offense except an offense the prosecution of which would have been barred by subsection (2) on or before October 1, 2003.

(8)(a) In addition to the time periods prescribed in this section, a prosecution for any of the following offenses may be commenced within 1 year after the date on which the identity of the accused is established, or should have been established by the exercise of due diligence, through the analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, if a sufficient portion of the evidence collected at the time of the original investigation and tested for DNA is preserved and available for testing by the accused:

1. An offense of sexual battery under chapter 794.

2. A lewd or lascivious offense under s. 800.04 or s. 825.1025.

(b) This subsection applies to any offense that is not otherwise barred from prosecution on or after July 1, 2004.

History.--s. 78, Feb. 10, 1832; s. 1, ch. 4915, 1901; RS 2357; GS 3181, 3182; RGS 5011, 5012; CGL 7113, 7114; s. 1, ch. 16962, 1935; s. 10, ch. 26484, 1951; s. 109, ch. 70-339; s. 10, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 76-275; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 12, ch. 78-435; s. 6, ch. 84-86; s. 1, ch. 84-550; s. 10, ch. 85-63; s. 4, ch. 89-143; s. 2, ch. 90-120; s. 2, ch. 91-258; s. 16, ch. 93-156; s. 17, ch. 95-158; s. 139, ch. 95-418; s. 1, ch. 96-145; s. 3, ch. 96-280; s. 3, ch. 96-322; s. 4, ch. 96-409; s. 1, ch. 97-36; s. 1, ch. 97-90; s. 1812, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 97-104; s. 17, ch. 98-174; s. 7, ch. 99-201; s. 5, ch. 99-204; s. 3, ch. 2000-246; s. 1, ch. 2001-102; s. 1, ch. 2002-168; s. 1, ch. 2003-116; s. 1, ch. 2004-94.

Note.--See former ss. 932.05, 932.06, 915.03, 932.465.


Source

Case Law

TERRANTON HUNT,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MISTER SOFTEE

You look for shit thats not there, and ignore shit that is, to make whatever point you wanted to make at the beginning. Typical CIA thinking.