BOBBY JOE HILL, 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 a proper inquiry into a discovery violation and by improperly placing the burden of showing prejudice on the defendant.
The defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated battery, arguing that the State failed to disclose clothing worn by the victim prior to trial as …
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.
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Bobby Joe Hill appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. Specifically, he objects to the introduction in evidence of clothing worn by the alleged victim on the ground that the State did not disclose or permit him to inspect the clothing prior to trial as required under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(l)(vi).
At trial, appellant informed the court that the state had violated a rule of discovery. The court inquired of appellant’s counsel as to whether the violation had prejudiced appellant, but did not conduct the required inquiry under the standards set out in Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
The trial court also placed the burden of showing prejudice on appellant. In situations of this nature, the burden is on the State to show that there has been no prejudice to a defendant by a discovery violation. Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1977).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Eladio Alfonso, 478 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…n question. Mercer v. Raine, supra. In the case at bar, the prosecution, as the offending party, had the burden of proof in the trial court to show that the defendants had not been prejudiced by the prosecution’s discovery violation. Hill v. State, 406 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); see also Hofmeister v. State, 381 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 388 So. 2d 1114 (Fla.1980); Brey v. State, 382 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Moreover, on appeal, the prosecution had the burden of demonstrating that…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1977)