EDWARD SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court reversed defendant's conviction due to trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry regarding the State's discovery violations, holding such failure is per se reversible error even if harmless, and certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
Failure of the trial court to require the State to show at a hearing that the defendant has not been prejudiced where the State failed to comply with discovery rules is per se reversible error, even if the error would otherwise be harmless.
[1] Failure of trial court to conduct Richardson hearing on State's discovery violations is per se reversible error even if error would otherwise be harmless.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdward Smith was tried in a Florida trial court where the State failed to comply with discovery rules and the trial court did not conduct a Richardson…
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 Denial Of Fair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
We are not persuaded that the security measure of excluding a defendant from the bench conference where peremptory challenges are exercised outside the jury’s hearing, after he and counsel have had an opportunity to confer as to how each challenge will be exercised, deprives the defendant of participation at a critical stage of the trial proceedings. Cf. Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla.1982) (exercise of challenges was conducted in a different room, therefore, defendant was unable to consult with his attorney during selection process). The second question, as presented by the record in this case, is whether failure of the trial court to require the State to show at a hearing that the defendant has not been prejudiced where the State failed to comply with the discovery rules, Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), is per se reversible even though the error would have otherwise been harmless.
The question must be answered in the affirmative in light of Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1977), and several cases which have applied the Richardson rule. The question was certified to the supreme court by the fourth district for re-examination in Hall v. State, 477 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) and by a panel of this court in R.R. v. State, 476 So. 2d 218 (Fla.3d DCA 1985). We join in certifying the question as one of great public importance.
Is a new trial required when the trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry is, in the opinion of the reviewing court, harmless error?
Reversed. Question certified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review Smith v. State, 476 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), in which the district court certified a question as being of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. This case arises because the state failed to comply with our rules of discovery. At trial…1 / 2
-
Lewis v. State, 566 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…challenging of the jurors, and the fact that he was not present with counsel at side bar conferences regarding those challenges is not a basis for reversal under the case law. See Willis v. State, 523 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Smith v. State, 476 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), aff'd, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986). Lewis also has failed to demonstrate reversible error with respect to other instances in which he claims he should have been present but which were not critical stages in the case. See U.S. v. Ga…
-
Alphonso Willis v. State, 523 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…MS. YOUNG: No, we will accept the panel. The record reflects that the jury was selected in appellant’s presence and with no limitations on appellant’s ability to consult with counsel before any decisions or challenges were made. Cf. Smith v. State, 476 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The trial court is entitled to substantial discretion and latitude in conducting a trial, and we do not believe that appellant has demonstrated any abuse of that discretion on the record presented here. GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ.,…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Francis v. State, 413 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1982)
- Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1977)
- R.R. v. State, 476 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Hall v. State, 477 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)