KENNETH WARD, 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.
The court held that the failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry is per se reversible error, but certified a question regarding harmless error.
Appellant's convictions were reversed due to the trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry regarding an unlisted witness. The witness's te…
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
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the appellant’s convictions relying, as we must, on the rule that the failure to conduct a Richardson1 inquiry into the possible prejudice resulting from failure to list a witness is per se reversible error. Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1977). It is clear to us, however, that the error here was harmless and, if we were at liberty to do so, we would affirm.2 Consequently, as we did in R.R. v. State, 476 So. 2d 218, (Fla.3d DCA 1985), we certify the following question to the Supreme Court of Florida:
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.
. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
. The unlisted witness, Ms. Beard, was called in rebuttal by the state. Her testimony was limited essentially to an identification of Ward as the driver of the victim’s car on the day of the crimes. We fail to see the adverse impact of such testimony since Ward himself testified that he drove the victim’s car on that day. Because Ms. Beard’s testimony corroborated Ward's, the necessity and value of any possible impeachment is not only questionable, but nonexistent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Faro v. Romani, 629 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…nce in the record supporting a trial court conclusion that there was justification and good cause for counsel’s withdrawing and recovering a fee for his services. See The Florida Bar v. Hollander, 607 So .2d 412, 415 (Fla.1992); Sanchez v. Friesner, 477 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See also Borup v. National Airlines, Inc., 159 F.Supp. 808 (S.D.N.Y.1958). If there is liability on this basis, we should treat the question of damages as we would one for fees claimed as a result of a discharge of counsel withou…1 / 2
-
State v. Ward, 502 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 1987)…ourt of Appeal has certified the following 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? Ward v. State, 477 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We recently answered the identical question in the affirmative in Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986). Accordingly, we approve the deci…
-
Lucie Raphael v. State, 574 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…trial court erred in excluding the defense witnesses without conducting a Richardson inquiry. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971); Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979); S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Ward v. State, 477 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), approved, 502 So. 2d 1245 (Fla.1987). We therefore reverse the convictions and sentences and remand for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Cumbie v. State, 345 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1977)
- R.R. v. State, 476 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)