THOMAS GISH BRUMLEY, 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.
Brumley was convicted by jury of second-degree arson and sentenced to probation. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to conduct a proper Richardson inquiry before excluding defense evidence based on a discovery violation, despite finding the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
A new trial is required when the trial court fails to conduct a proper Richardson inquiry before excluding defense evidence based on a discovery violation. The failure to make an adequate Richardson inquiry prevents application of the harmless error statute, necessitating reversal and remand, even if the appellate court finds the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A jury verdict will not be disturbed on appeal for insufficiency of evidence if the record contains substantial competent evidence of all facts essential to the verdict.
[2] Competent evidence is relevant evidence that does not fit within any rule of exclusion and is probative of the fact to be proved.
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“a jury verdict will not be disturbed on this ground if the record contains substantial competent evidence of all facts essential to the verdict”
Establishes the standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence claims on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrumley was convicted by jury of second-degree arson. Adjudication was withheld and he was sentenced to probation. During trial, defense counsel offer…
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 Harmless Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Brumley, was convicted by a jury of second degree arson. Adjudication was withheld and appellant was sentenced to a term of probation. He raises six issues in his appeal from that conviction and sentence, only two of which merit comment.
One of appellant’s points on appeal is that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury verdict. The rule is that a jury verdict will not be disturbed on this ground if the record contains substantial competent evidence of all facts essential to the verdict. See Miles v. State, 160 Fla. 523, 36 So. 2d 182 (1948). Competent .evidence is matter probative of the fact to be proved; that is, relevant evidence that does not fit within any rule of exclusion. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind might accept it to support a conclusion. Id. 36 So. 2d at 183. We conclude that the jury verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence.
The second point that warrants discussion is the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry (Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971)) before excluding defense evidence based upon a discovery violation. Photographs (taken before the fire) of the structure involved in the arson, offered in evidence by defense counsel, were excluded upon an objection based upon failure to disclose. The court made only preliminary inquiry and did not consider whether prejudice had occurred.
The excluded evidence was barely probative and was, at best, cumulative. The failure to make adequate inquiry, however, forestalls application of the harmless error statute, although we find that the error was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. As we did in Carroll v. State, 414 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 28 (Fla.1983), we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Because we are granting a new trial, we do not address appellant’s first point on appeal except to suggest that we have not been persuaded that the special condition of probation is valid.
As we did in Hall v. State, 477 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), we certify the question (in slightly different wording) to the Supreme Court of Florida as one of great public importance:
IS A NEW TRIAL REQUIRED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILS TO CONDUCT A RICHARDSON INQUIRY WHERE, IN THE OPINION OF THE REVIEWING COURT, EXCLUSION OF DEFENSE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF A DISCOVERY VIOLATION IS HARMLESS ERROR BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?
REVERSE and REMAND.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sigler v. State, 805 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…996); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence tests the adequacy of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981); see also Brumley v. State, 500 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). On appeal, “the concern [is] whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the…
-
Michelson v. State, 805 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…1345 (Fla.1996); Viveros v. State, 699 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence tests the adequacy of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981); Brumley v. State, 500 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). On appeal, “the concern [is] whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial competent evidence to support the…
-
Bussell v. State, 66 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…). “Competent evidence is matter probative of the fact to be proved; that is, relevant evidence that does not fit within any rule of exclusion. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind might accept it to support a conclusion.” Brumley v. State, 500 So. 2d 233, 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Hence, a judgment of acquittal should not be granted where the State has produced competent, substantial evidence to support every element of the crime. Gay v. State, 607 So. 2d 454, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Appellant was…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Miles v. State, 160 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1948)
- Hall v. State, 477 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Carroll v. State, 414 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)