MELVIN BOYNTON, A/K/A FREDDY BOYNTON, 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.
Melvin Boynton appealed his first-degree murder conviction, claiming prosecutorial violations of discovery rules. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the prosecution failed to disclose the name and testimony of key witnesses in violation of procedural rules, without adequate judicial inquiry into prejudice.
The trial court erred in failing to conduct an adequate 'Richardson inquiry' to determine whether the prosecutorial discovery violations prejudiced the defendant's preparation for trial. Without such an inquiry and affirmative findings on the record that no prejudice occurred, the errors are not harmless and require reversal and remand for a new trial.
[1] A trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry into all surrounding circumstances to determine if the prosecution's non-compliance with discovery rules resulted in harm o…
[2] If a trial court determines that the prosecution's non-compliance with discovery rules did not prejudice the defendant's ability to prepare for trial, the record must aff…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“The trial court had discretion to determine whether the non-compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 would have resulted in harm or prejudice to the appellant. However, the trial court's exercise of discretion could only have been made after the court had made an adequate inquiry into all the surrounding circumstances.”
Establishes the standard for harmless error review in discovery violations—requires adequate trial court inquiry before determining non-prejudice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoynton was convicted of first-degree murder. During trial, the prosecution called witness Bill Pheil and Linda Pryor over defense counsel's objection…
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 Criminal Discovery Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant brings this appeal from his conviction of first degree murder and raises several points. We find two that present reversible error. These reversing points relate to failure of the prosecution, after proper demand, to comply with the rules of criminal procedure by (1) failing to disclose the name of the witness, Bill Pheil, who testified over defense counsel’s objection, and (2) failing to disclose the substance of the testimony of the witness, Linda Pryor, whose testimony was allowed over objection.
The trial court had discretion to determine whether the non-compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 would have resulted in harm or prejudice to the appellant. However, the trial court’s exercise of discretion could only have been made after the court had made an adequate inquiry into all the surrounding circumstances. If the court had then determined the non-compliance had not prejudiced defendant’s ability to properly prepare for trial, the circumstances establishing non-prejudice must have affirmatively appeared in the record. See Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Here, the inquiry as to the failure to furnish the name of witness Bill Pheil was inadequate in extent as it dealt with the late notification of the witness’ name and the substance of his testimony. No inquiry was made into the effect of the breach on the preparation of the defendant’s case. No finding was made that the preparation of the appellant’s defense was not prejudiced.
Here, the prosecutor informed defense counsel that Linda Pryor would be a state witness. The prosecutor failed to disclose the substance of witness Linda Pryor’s testimony. He also failed to disclose that Linda Pryor would testify to numerous oral statements attributed to appellant.
A “Richardson inquiry” should have been made in each case to assess the impact the respective non-disclosures had on the ability of the appellant to prepare for trial.
Where such a “Richardson inquiry” is not made, no appellate court can be certain errors of this type are harmless. An appellate court cannot now review the cold record and determine that the error is harmless. McClellan v. State, 359 So. 2d 869 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1978).
We reverse and remand for a new trial.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brey v. State, 382 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ity of any persons witnessing such statement. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220 (a)(l)(iii). Compliance with the rules requires more than the mere inclusion of such a person’s name in a list of witnesses who may have information about the crime. Boynton v. State, 378 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Lavigne v. State, 349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Upon objection by the defendant, the burden is on the state to initially demonstrate that previously undisclosed evidence can be admitted without prejudicing the fair trial…
-
Bradford Glenn McDONNOUGH v. State, 402 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…391 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). If the trial court does not hold an adequate Richardson hearing, the appellate [*1235] court cannot apply the doctrine of harmless error. Brey v. State, 382 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 procedur…
-
Fasenmyer v. State, 383 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…t recent statement, failure to hold a Richardson inquiry 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,…
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)
- McCLELLAN v. State, 359 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)