FRED G. COOPER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By (47 total)

• State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
  …as a matter of law absent a Richardson inquiry.” Cooper v. State, 377 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.1979); see also Barrett v. State, 649 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1994); Smith, 500 So. 2d at 125; Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386, 389 (Fla.1979); Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020, 1023 (Fla.1979); Cumbie, 345 So. 2d at 1062. Thus, the per se rule has been a part of Florida law for nearly twenty years. Now, in spite of our repeated holdings to the contrary, the majority announces a change in this long-standing rule because o…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)
  …476 So. 2d at 749. We have addressed this issue repeatedly and consistently. See Cooper v. State, 377 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.1979); Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386, 389 (Fla.1979); Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86, 88 (Fla.1979); Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020, 1023 (Fla.1979); Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.1977). Both legal and practical considerations dictate, once again, an affirmative answer to the question posed. First, from a practical perspective, the rule of Richardson and its proge…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Buddy Earl Justus v. State, 438 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1983)
  …prejudice which would have necessitated a mistrial. Since the inquiry was made that very night, however, and not after return of a verdict, this case does not fall within the doctrine of Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979), and Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1979), pertaining to the timeliness of Richardson inquiries. We do not believe the court prejudged the inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation. Moreover, we uphold the judge’s findings that the withheld information was cumulat…