JAMES WOLSKI, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in excluding the co-defendant's testimony due to discovery violations and prejudice to the state. However, the sentence was reversed for deletion of costs.
Appellant sought to call a co-defendant as a witness after the co-defendant was granted a judgment of acquittal. The state objected, citing a discover…
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 Prejudice To The State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks a new trial based on the trial court’s exclusion of a co-defendant’s testimony at trial. At the close of the state’s case, the trial court granted the co-defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. Appellant then announced his intention to call the co-defendant as a witness. The state objected and argued that appellant’s failure to list the co-defendant as a witness constituted a discovery violation. The trial court agreed and found that the state would suffer prejudice if it allowed the co-defendant to testify.
We find no error in the trial court’s exclusion of this testimony. The trial court conducted an adequate hearing as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) and the record supports the exclusion of the witness based on prejudice to the state. Appellant also admitted that he could, and in fact did, present the same testimony with two other witnesses.
Accordingly, appellant’s conviction is affirmed on the authority of Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla.1979) and Richardson v. State, supra. However, we reverse and remand his sentence for deletion of the costs assessed against him, on the authority of Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 143 So. 3d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…im. She did neither. He’s on probation. She can make the probation officer have [*1124] bim come here. She knows that because she put him on probation. PROSECUTOR: ... Judge, I do have a case too that I’ll cite for the record. It’s Wolski v. State, 515 So. 2d 433 [ (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) ] ... where it was a codefen-dant very similar to this situation.... [I]t upheld an exclusion of the codefen-dant as a witness because the court did conduct a proper and adequate Richardson hearing.... COURT: And this kind of…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979)