STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
KENNETH EDWARD DAVIS, RESPONDENT
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 State petitioned for certiorari to review a trial court's order excluding state witnesses as a sanction for discovery violations. The appellate court held that exclusion of testimony is an appropriate sanction only for willful discovery violations, not negligent ones, and vacated the exclusion order.
The court held that exclusion of testimony should be ordered only when there is a willful violation of discovery rules. Because the trial court found the state's violation was not intentional, exclusion was improper. A less harsh sanction, such as a continuance to allow the defense to interview witnesses while preserving the speedy trial period, would have adequately addressed any procedural prejudice.
[1] Exclusion of a party's trial testimony is an extreme sanction for a discovery violation and should be ordered only when a willful violation is found.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding witnesses for a discovery violation when the violation was not willful and the prejudice to the opposing party could have…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The exclusion of testimony should be ordered only when the court finds that there is a wilful violation of the discovery rules.”
Establishes the legal standard for when exclusion is an appropriate sanction; willfulness is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state charged Davis with sexual battery, burglary, robbery, kidnapping and grand theft on December 20, 1987, for crimes allegedly occurring Novemb…
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 Exclusion Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The state petitions for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court order excluding the trial testimony of numerous state witnesses for an alleged discovery violation. We grant the petition.
On December 20, 1987, the state filed an information charging the defendant, Kenneth Edward Davis, with sexual battery, burglary, robbery, kidnapping and grand theft, which allegedly occurred on November 11,1987. Davis was arrested for those charges on March 22, 1988. The public defender was appointed as his defense counsel and a trial set for May 31. On March 30, defense counsel filed a Demand for Discovery to which the state responded on April 4.
Thirteen days before trial, on May 18, the state filed a Motion to Compel Blood, Hair, Saliva and Fingerprint Samples. On May 20, Davis filed a Demand for Speedy Trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(a)(2). On May 23, the state withdrew its request to compel hair samples and the court granted the motion as to the blood, saliva and fingerprint samples. On May 27, Davis filed a second Demand for Speedy Trial. The trial was continued to June 6 and then to June 27. Both continuances were granted at the state’s request over the defendant’s objections.
On June 21, the state filed a supplemental notice of discovery, listing 13 additional witnesses, additional police reports and a lab report. The defense then moved the court to sanction the state for discovery violations. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(j). At the Richardson hearing,1 the defense argued that the state’s delay in providing the additional and lengthy discovery violated his speedy trial rights. The state explained the discovery was prolonged due to delays by law enforcement and the state crime lab. The state argued that it had complied with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(f) by providing information to the defendant as soon as the state attorney’s office received it. The defense requested that the judge impose sanctions against the state by excluding the witnesses identified on the supplemental notice of discovery.
The trial judge found that while not intentional, the state’s discovery violation was significant, and that there was substantial prejudice to Davis’ right to speedy trial. The circuit judge granted the motion for sanctions and prohibited the state from using the 13 new witnesses’ testimony at trial.
Delays by the state are wasteful of the resources of the criminal justice system and must be avoided whenever possible. Here, it is clear that the state failed to investigate and prepare the case against Davis in a prompt manner and such negligence should not be condoned. However, the parties’ interests and rights in this matter could have been preserved by a less harsh sanction than the exclusion of the state’s witnesses. A continuance could have been ordered allowing the defense time to interview the witnesses, and still set the trial within demanded speedy trial period.
The exclusion of testimony should be ordered only when the court finds that there is a wilful violation of the discovery rules. Here, the court found that the violation by the state was not intentional. Any procedural prejudice to Davis could have been alleviated by a continuance. See State v. Bowers, 422 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Accordingly, we grant the state’s petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the order excluding the witnesses, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER and THREADGILL, JJ., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Smith, 586 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…to locate expert witnesses of his own. After one attempt to depose the FDLE expert did not satisfy the defense, the circuit court eventually decided that the witness should be excluded. The facts of this case are similar to those in State v. Davis, 532 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), wherein this court vacated an order excluding numerous state witnesses. The prosecutor in Davis, who sought to compel certain physical evidence only thir [*1238] teen days before trial, clearly had been negligent in assembling th…
-
State v. Sowers, 763 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…inding that the violation was willful is based solely on the amount of time it took for the state to discover and correct its omission. Although this may well constitute negligence, it does not constitute a willful violation. Compare State v. Davis, 532 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), in which the trial was twice continued because of the state’s delayed and lengthy discovery. The trial court found the state’s delay to be a significant, but unintentional violation and found that the defendant had suffered preju…1 / 2
-
Orrick Wilson v. State, 789 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review denied, 760 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2000) (table opinion). Here, the trial court discerned that the violation was not willful, but chided the State for its negligent failure to fully investigate the matter. See State v. Davis, 532 So. 2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (characterizing State’s failure to investigate and prepare case in prompt manner as “negligent”). Further, the court recognized that the violation was fairly substantial. In light of Wilson’s alibi defense, and especially gi…
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)
- State v. Bowers, 422 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)