D.M., A CHILD AND E.M., A CHILD, APPELLANTS,
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 allowing an unlisted rebuttal witness to testify without conducting a Richardson inquiry.
The state called a witness not listed on discovery to testify at the juveniles' adjudicatory hearing. The juveniles objected, but the trial court allo…
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 Richardson Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
D.M. and E.M., who are juveniles, appeal their placement in a community control program. We reverse.
At appellants’ adjudicatory hearing, the state called as a rebuttal witness an individual who was not listed as a witness as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(l)(i). Appellants timely objected to the state’s calling this witness because he was not listed, but the trial court allowed the witness to testify without conducting a Richardson inquiry.1
As this court clearly stated in Potts v. State, 403 So. 2d 443, 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981):
Rebuttal .witnesses are not an exception to the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(l)(i). Once a failure to disclose the name of a witness is called to the attention of the trial court, an inquiry must be held to determine whether the state’s failure was willful, whether or not the effect of the omission is substantial and whether it prejudiced the accused’s preparation for trial. Failure to do so requires reversal.
(Citations omitted.)
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND this cause for a new adjudicatory hearing.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ratcliff v. State, 561 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…n is that the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson * hearing after an objection by defendant to a discovery violation by the state constituted per se reversible error. See Lee v. State, 538 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); D.M. v. State, 421 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The violation was the failure of the state to includfe on its witness list the name of a rebuttal witness called by the state. Rebuttal witnesses are not excepted from the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220.…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Potts v. State, 403 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)