DELMARIO UNTRALE HILL, 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.
Delmario Hill appealed his convictions for false imprisonment, sexual battery, theft, burglary, and aggravated assault. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding a due process violation where critical DNA test results and expert witnesses were disclosed to the defendant only on Sunday evening before Monday trial, denying him adequate time to prepare a defense.
The court held that the denial of the continuance was error because due process rights under state and federal constitutions, along with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, require that witnesses be disclosed to a criminal defendant in sufficient time to permit reasonable investigation, especially regarding innovative scientific evidence such as DNA testing.
[1] A defendant must be afforded sufficient time to investigate expert testimony, particularly when it involves innovative scientific evidence, to ensure a fair trial and sat…
[2] Denying a motion for continuance to allow a defendant to investigate critical expert testimony, especially when first disclosed shortly before trial, constitutes reversib…
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“fairness, state and federal constitutional due process rights and the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure require that witnesses be disclosed and made available to a defendant in a criminal case in sufficient time to permit a reasonable investigation regarding the proposed testimony”
Establishes the legal standard for witness disclosure timing in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHill was convicted of various crimes including false imprisonment, sexual battery, theft, burglary, and aggravated assault. The pretrial history invol…
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 Scientific Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from convictions of various counts charging false imprisonment, sexual battery, theft, burglary and aggravated assault.
The pretrial history of this case involves many state-caused delays and questionable tactics. There was a mistrial granted due to state misconduct. There was more .than one nolle-prosequi filed because of prosecutorial problems. The number and causes of the problems created by the state attorneys are nearly record setting and, while perhaps interesting need not be catalogued here. While we teeter on the brink of reversing the conviction and ordering a discharge of appellant we feel justice requires us to stop short of that.
One factor which deprived appellant of a fair trial was a due process violation regarding the introduction of critical DNA test results. At 5:00 p.m. on the Sunday before the Monday trial appellant was for the first time permitted the right to interview and depose the expert witnesses who had performed the tests to determine whether a DNA match could be obtained. See Andrews v. State, 533 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). On the morning of trial appellant asked for a continuance of the trial in order to try to form a defense, if he could, to the expert testimony. The denial of that motion for continuance was error because fairness, state and federal constitutional due process rights and the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure require that witnesses be disclosed and made available to a defendant in a criminal case in sufficient time to permit a reasonable investigation regarding the proposed testimony. This is especially true in a case where innovative scientific evidence is the subject. No law of the case should be inferred from the fact that this opinion does not discuss the other issues raised on appeal.
The convictions are reversed and this cause remanded for new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 610 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 1992)…predicate facts could be established, the laboratory employees could testify. [*1291] Now, Robinson argues that the trial court erred both in denying the continuance and in admitting the DNA testimony. We disagree. Robinson relies on Hill v. State, 535 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), in which the district court held that a continuance should have been granted where the defense was allowed, for the first time, to interview and depose witnesses about DNA testing results the day before trial. Hill, however, is…
-
Griffin v. State, 598 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…discretion in that court found witness to be necessary for proper defense, despite fact that appellant had three months prior to trial to locate this witness yet waited until four days before trial to move for issuance of a subpoena); Hill v. State, 535 So. 2d 354, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (“fairness, state and federal constitutional due process rights and the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure require that witnesses be disclosed and made available to a defendant in a criminal case in sufficient time to permi…
-
Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Isadora Redmon, 387 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- Andrews v. State, 533 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)