Florida Sexual Violence Benchbook - Florida Council Against ...

upon the law that existed at the time they occurred, any offense of capital sexual battery that is
alleged to have occurred prior to July 23, 1981 must still be initiated by a grand jury indictment
and a defendant will also be entitled to a 12-person jury in such cases.
“The indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain,
concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” 196
Essentially, informations must be clear enough for defendants to be able to prepare a defense.
“Each count of an indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried shall allege
the essential facts constituting the offense charged. In addition, each count shall recite the official
or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation, or other provision of law that the
defendant is alleged to have violated. Error in or omission of the citation shall not be ground
for dismissing the count or for a reversal of a conviction based thereon if the error or omission
did not mislead the defendant to the defendant’s prejudice.” 197
When an information is not clear or includes an error, case law and rules tends to favor
allowing amendments to cure such defects as opposed to simply dismissing a case outright,
unless a defendant has actually been prejudiced by the information. 198 “An information on
which the defendant is to be tried that charges an offense may be amended on the motion of
the prosecuting attorney or defendant at any time prior to trial because of formal defects.” 199
In DuBois, an arrest of judgment on a sexual battery charge was reversed because the
indictment gave the defendant sufficient notice of the charge he was facing and was, therefore,
not defective. 200 “In this case DuBoise did not move to quash the indictment before trial, but
instead waited until after the trial before filing a motion for arrest of judgment pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.610. That rule provides that a motion for arrest of judgment
shall not be granted unless the indictment is so defective that it will not support a judgment of
conviction. The reason for this provision is to discourage defendants from waiting until after a
trial is over before contesting deficiencies in charging documents which could have easily been
corrected if they had been pointed out before trial. Hence a charging document which is subject
to pre-trial dismissal can nevertheless withstand a post-trial motion for arrest of judgment. For
example, the failure to include an essential element of a crime does not necessarily render an
indictment so defective that it will not support a judgment of conviction when the indictment
references a specific section of the criminal code which sufficiently details all the elements of the
offense. In this case the indictment specifically referenced section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes.
By referencing section 794.011(3), which specifically defines all the elements of the offense, the
indictment placed DuBoise on adequate notice of the crime being charged.” 201
Some of the other issues that can arise out of informations include: vague timeframes for
196 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.140 (b) Nature of Indictment or Information.
197 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.140 (d)(1) Allegations of Fact; Citation of Law Violated.
198 See, State v. Haubrick, 997 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
199 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.140 (j) Amendment of Information.
200 See, DuBois v. State, 520 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1988).
201 Id. at 264-265 (internal citations and spacing omitted).
44 Florida Sexual Violence Benchbook