EDWARD A. BLATCH, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Blatch's conviction and remanded for a new trial due to the state's failure to comply with discovery rules by concealing the substance of an oral inculpatory statement made to police, and the trial court's error in failing to conduct an adequate Richardson hearing before admitting the statement.
The state has an affirmative duty to disclose the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant, together with the names and addresses of witnesses to those statements. Merely advising the defense of the officers' names does not satisfy this obligation. The trial court erred in ruling that the defense had an obligation to depose officers when the state failed to disclose the statement's contents.
[1] A new trial is warranted when a trial court fails to conduct an adequate hearing regarding an oral inculpatory statement made by a defendant.
[2] The state has an affirmative duty to disclose the substance of any oral statements made by a defendant and known to exist, along with the identity of the witness to the s…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We reverse and remand for a new trial because of the trial court's error in failing to conduct an adequate hearing pursuant to the case of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), and in allowing the state to introduce appellant's oral inculpatory statement made to the police, without having advised the defense of the statement in accordance with the rules of discovery.”
States the primary basis for reversal—failure to conduct a Richardson hearing and improper admission of the statement without proper discovery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers took an oral inculpatory statement from defendant Blatch. The state advised the defense of the officers' names but did not disclose th…
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.
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand for a new trial because of the trial court’s error in failing to conduct an adequate hearing pursuant to the case of Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), and in allowing the state to introduce appellant’s oral inculpatory statement made to the police, without having advised the defense of the statement in accordance with the rules of discovery.
The state advised the defense that certain police officers had taken a statement from the defendant but did not disclose the contents of the statement. A report made by those officers was furnished to the defense but that report, while discussing exculpatory statements made by the defendant, made no mention of the oral inculpatory statement later offered at trial. It is undisputed that the state was aware of the oral inculpatory statement at the time of discovery. The trial court ruled that the defense, having been advised of the names of the officers, had an obligation to depose them. This is not the law. See Lavigne v. State, 349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The law requires the disclosure of the substance of any statements made and known by the state to exist as well as the identity of the person to whom it was made:
At the same time, it bears repeating that this court will not countenance trial by ambush. The state has an affirmative duty, upon demand, to furnish full discovery. In particular, when the defendant has made an oral statement, the state must do more than answer “yes” on a printed discovery form. Rule 3.220(a)(1)(iii), Fla.R.Crim.P., requires the state to divulge “the substance of any oral statements ... together with the name and address of each witness to the statements.” The printed discovery form now in use in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit fails to satisfy this aspect of the rule. As the case at bar indicates, the present format of the local discovery form can be a trap for the prosecution and the defense alike; it should be corrected to assure full compliance with the rule.
Odoms v. State, 431 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (Hurley, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferrari v. State, 260 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…onduct an adequate Richardson hearing to determine if the discovery violation prejudiced the defendant's ability to prepare for trial). Here, the State is charged with the knowledge of the tapes in the possession of the police. In Blatch v. State , 495 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (quoting Odoms v. State , 431 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ) (emphasis in original), we explained that "[t]he state has an affirmative duty, upon demand, to furnish full discovery" to the defense. There, the State had di…
-
Martinez v. State, 528 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…We are compelled to reverse. The fact that the defense had access to a witness for deposition does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3.220(a)(l)(iii), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to disclose an accused’s statements. In Blatch v. State, 495 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), the court held: The state advised the defense that certain police officers had taken a statement from the defendant but did not disclose the contents of the statement. A report made by those officers was furnished to the…
-
Coachman v. State, 506 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…ial court’s failure to conduct a hearing concerning the state’s alleged discovery violation in failing to disclose the substance of incriminating statements allegedly made by the appellant and subsequently used against her at trial. Blatch v. State, 495 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). ANSTEAD, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
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)
- Lavigne v. State, 349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Odoms v. State, 431 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Degafferelly v. State, 431 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)