NATHANIEL HENDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an adequate Richardson inquiry into the State's discovery violation, requiring reversal.
[1] Independent proof of a conspiracy is required before an alleged co-conspirator’s hearsay statements made during the pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its o…
[2] Circumstantial evidence coupled with a defendant's statements can be sufficient to establish independent proof of a conspiracy and its members.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit a felony. The State failed to disclose a statement made by the defendant until the day of trial, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Henderson seeks reversal of his conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony, to wit: the sale or delivery of cocaine urging that (1) hearsay statements of his alleged co-conspirators were improperly admitted at trial because the conspiracy itself had not been established by independent evidence, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance without conducting an adequate Richardson1 inquiry when it was discovered at trial that the State had violated the discovery rules.
Independent proof of a conspiracy is required before an alleged co-conspirator’s hearsay statements made during the pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objectives are admissible. Briklod v. State, 365 So. 2d 1023 (Fla.1978). We find that the circumstantial evidence coupled with the statements made by appellant were sufficient to establish independent proof of the conspiracy and its members. Accordingly, the hearsay statements of the alleged co-conspirators were properly admitted.
However, we agree that the cause should be reversed because the court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the State’s discovery violation. The State did not disclose the existence and substance of a statement made by Henderson until the day of trial. The inquiry conducted by the trial court was insufficient to satisfy the require ments of Richardson, supra, particularly since the circumstances establishing non-prejudice to Henderson do not affirmatively appear in the record. See McClellan v. State, 359 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1 DCA 1978). Although prejudice may have been averted if a recess had been granted to allow questioning or a deposition of the witness to the statement, the trial court denied Henderson’s motion for a continuance.
Since an adequate Richardson hearing was not conducted herein, the cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial. See Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979).
McCORD, C. J., and BOOTH and MELVIN, JJ., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawthorne v. State, 377 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…nding the State’s breach of the discovery rules and whether the defendant was prejudiced by the State’s noncompliance with the rules. Failure to conduct this inquiry requires a new trial. Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979); Henderson v. State, 372 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The trial court also erred in allowing the testimony of the four witnesses newly revealed by the State because no proper predicate was laid for their testimony. These witnesses were not residents of the same community as the de…
-
Fasenmyer v. State, 383 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…after discovery violations by either the state or the defense is reversible error. Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979). There appear to be no exceptions to the rule. See Boynton v. State, 378 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Henderson v. State, 372 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Thompson v. State, 374 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. MILLS, C. J., and SHIVERS, J., concur. . Outside the presence of the jury, the de…
-
Shrum v. State, 401 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…after discovery violations by either the state or the defense is reversible error. Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979). There appear to be no exceptions to the rule. See Boynton v. State, 378 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Henderson v. State, 372 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Thompson v. State, 374 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). See also Kilpatrick v. State at 389. The factual bases for the holdings in those cases are dissimilar from the case befor…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)
- Jules Briklod v. State, 365 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1978)
- McCLELLAN v. State, 359 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)