RANDY MILLER, 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.
Miller was convicted of burglary but appeals contending the trial court erred by not conducting a Richardson hearing to determine whether he was prejudiced by the State's nondisclosure of a rebuttal witness. The District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the failure to conduct the hearing at the time of discovery violation constitutes error that cannot be cured by post-trial inquiry.
Yes. A trial court must conduct a Richardson hearing when discovery rule violations occur to inquire into the prejudice to the defendant. The failure to hold such a hearing at the time the violation arises is error that cannot be cured by post-trial inquiry.
[1] Discovery rules apply to rebuttal witnesses.
[2] A trial court's discretion to permit undisclosed rebuttal witnesses is conditioned upon an adequate inquiry into all surrounding circumstances establishing prejudice or n…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Discovery rules apply to rebuttal witnesses.”
Establishes that the State was required to disclose its rebuttal witness in discovery, making the nondisclosure a violation of the rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was charged with burglary. One day before trial, Miller disclosed an alibi witness named Ruben Smith, whom the State had not previously known 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 Notice Of Alibi cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Miller appeals his conviction for burglary of a dwelling, alleging that the trial court erred by not inquiring into his prejudice from the State’s nondisclosure of a rebuttal witness during discovery.
Both parties filed witness lists pursuant to the reciprocal discovery provisions of Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.220. The lists disclosed neither appellant’s alibi witness nor appellee’s rebuttal witness. Appellant’s witness list contained no names. The State did not file a demand for notice of alibi under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.200. One day before trial, appellant filed a notice of alibi with the addition of a witness named Ruben Smith.
During the presentation of the State’s case in chief, a co-defendant testified to appellant’s participation with him in the burglary. Thereafter, during the defense’s case and without State objection, appellant’s alibi witness testified that appellant had stayed with him the evening of the burglary. The State then for the first time indicated that it would present a rebuttal witness to the alibi testimony. Appellant objected because the rebuttal witness was not on the State’s witness list. The court denied the objection without inquiry, noting that the alibi witness for appellant had not been disclosed to the State until the day before trial. Appellant then took the stand and testified that he had been with Smith all of the evening in question.
In rebuttal, the State called the wife of the co-defendant who had testified against appellant. She testified that on the evening of the burglary, appellant came by her home and left shortly thereafter in the company of her husband.
Discovery rules apply to rebuttal witnesses. Smith v. State, 319 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1975); Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). However, violation of a rule of procedure does not necessarily require reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that noncompliance with the rule resulted in prejudice to the defendant. A trial court has discretion to determine whether the noncompliance would result in harm or prejudice to the defendant, but the court’s discretion can be exercised only after the court has made an adequate inquiry into all of the surrounding circumstances establishing prejudice or nonpreju-dice to the defendant and such circumstances must appear affirmatively in the record. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971); see also Smith v. State, supra; Hardison v. State, supra.
We, at one point during the preparation of this opinion, had determined we would remand the matter to the trial court with directions to hold a post-trial Richardson hearing. This procedure would have been in line with our previously held views recited in our decisions relative to the case of Smith v. State, 353 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) and 359 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). However, and fortunately, during the formation of this opinion, we received from the Supreme Court guidance, directly on point, in the form of a reversal of our stance taken in the aforementioned case.
The Supreme Court in Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979), reminds us that the failure of a trial court to hold a Richardson hearing at the time the necessity arises is error and post-trial Richardson inquiries cannot cure that error. After considering the logic of the Supreme Court’s opinion, we agree and recede from our position in Smith, supra.
Thus, as the record of the case sub judice reveals that no Richardson hearing was held, we find error was committed requiring reversal of appellant’s conviction, the setting aside of the judgment of guilt and sentence, as is done, and the case is remanded with directions for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and .SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)…rdson, 246 So. 2d at 774 (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220); State v. Bruno, 107 So. 2d 9, 15 (Fla.1958) (vaguely worded charging document); Clair v. State, 406 So. 2d 109, 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220); Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220); Cannon v. State, 317 So. 2d 459, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.170(j)); Broeck v. State, 317 So. 2d 100, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (violation of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.170(j)…
-
Neimeyer v. State, 378 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…e as to the discretionary orders he may enter to assure the fairness of the trial. The discretion available to the trial judge may not be exercised, however, without first conducting the full inquiry mandated by the Richardson rule. Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 377 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Thompson v. State, 374 So. 2d 91 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). In the case at bar, the trial judge made no inquiry to determine whether the violation was a substantial one or whether appellant had been prejudiced in his ability to prepare f…1 / 2
-
Bradford Glenn McDONNOUGH v. State, 402 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Boynton v. State, 378 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1980). Nor can the appellate court order a post-trial Richardson hearing. Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979); Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The rules of criminal procedure requiring disclosure of witnesses apply to all witnesses including rebuttal witnesses. Hicks v. State, 400 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1981); Miller v. State, 389 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Miller v. St…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)
- Ruvel Smith v. State, 319 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1975)
- Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Smith v. State, 353 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Smith v. State, 359 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)