CHARLES LEON DORSEY, 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.
Charles Dorsey appeals his 1974 escape conviction, challenging the trial court's admission of prosecution witnesses who were not listed in the state's discovery response. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial judge was required to conduct an on-the-record inquiry into the circumstances of noncompliance with discovery rules before allowing such testimony.
Yes. Once a defendant raises noncompliance with discovery rules, the trial judge must conduct an on-the-record inquiry into the circumstances surrounding that noncompliance to determine whether the defendant was prejudiced. The trial court's failure to conduct such an inquiry on the record constitutes reversible error.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by allowing the testimony of prosecution witnesses not disclosed in discovery without conducting an on-the-record inquiry into the…
[2] A trial court's failure to conduct an on-the-record inquiry into the circumstances of discovery noncompliance and potential prejudice to the defendant constitutes reversi…
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 intelligence“Once noncompliance with this rule has been brought up to the trial judge's attention, he is required to conduct an on-the-record inquiry into the circumstances surrounding noncompliance in order to determine whether or not there has been prejudice to the defendant.”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for on-the-record inquiry when discovery violations are raised
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorsey was charged with escaping from DeSoto Correctional Institution while serving a sentence for breaking and entering. Defense counsel filed a disc…
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 Prejudice To Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant appeals his 1974 conviction for escape,1 alleging that the trial court erred when it allowed the testimony of prosecution witnesses who had not been included in the state’s response to a demand for discovery without first having conducted an on-the-record inquiry into all of the circumstances surrounding the state’s noncompliance with the discovery rule. We agree and reverse.
Appellant was charged with having escaped from the DeSoto Correctional Institution while serving a sentence for breaking and entering. Prior to trial defense counsel filed a demand for discovery pursuant to Rule 3.220(a)(l)(i), Fla.R.Crim.P., seeking, inter alia, a list of the witnesses the prosecution intended to call at trial. The prosecution responded with a list of three witnesses.
At trial the first witness called by the prosecution had not been included on the list and defense counsel immediately objected. A bench conference was then held off the record, at the conclusion of which defense counsel renewed his objection contending that he had been prejudiced in his ability to properly prepare for trial. Observing that defense counsel had been given an opportunity to interview the witness,2 the trial judge allowed the testimony. Thereafter, the prosecution called six more witnesses, only one of which had been included in its response to the demand for discovery. Although defense counsel again stated that he was objecting to the testimony of all witnesses who had not been included in the witness list, all but one were allowed to testify. No further inquiries, either on or off the record, were held.
The discovery rule requires the prosecution to furnish, upon written demand by the defendant, “[t]hé names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information which may be relevant to the offense charged, and to any defense with respect thereto.” Once noncompliance with this rule has been brought up to the trial judge’s attention, he is required to conduct an on-the-record inquiry into the circumstances surrounding noncompliance in order to determine. whether or not there has been prejudice to the defendant. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
The failure of the trial judge in the instant case to conduct such an inquiry on the record constitutes reversible error. Since the objectives of the Richardson inquiry are to ferret out procedural prejudice and to determine the appropriate sanction to invoke for the violation, a remand at this point, some five years after trial, for the purpose of conducting such an inquiry would be wholly inadequate. Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979).
Therefore, the judgment of conviction is set aside-and the case is remanded for a new trial.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER, J., concur. . This is a belated appeal pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d. 239 (Fla.1969).
. A brief recess was apparently taken so that defense counsel could interview the witness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neimeyer v. State, 378 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…to make a further Richardson inquiry as was allowed by this court in Smith v. State, 353 So. 2d 205, 207 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Such a posttrial procedure was disapproved by our supreme court in Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979). Dorsey v. State, 375 So. 2d 60 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Thompson v. State, 374 So. 2d 91 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Miller v. State, 373 So. 2d 377 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Accordingly, since the inquiry conducted in this case was inadequate under the rule established by Richardson, we reverse appe…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)