J.N., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Objections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
At a trial on charges of grand theft, the defendant objected to incriminating statements attributed to him by the State’s witness on grounds that the statements had not been disclosed in pretrial discovery. The court stated, “I’ll overrule your objection at this time.”
It is not disputed that there was a violation of the discovery rules. Instead, the State makes a specious argument that the court deferred ruling on the objection and that the failure of the defendant to restate the objection at some time during the trial amounted to a waiver. We hold that the court’s qualifying language “at this time,” following a clear overruling of the objection, placed no onus on the defendant to renew his protest. The timely and specific objection, see Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.1979) (there is no waiver of a discovery violation where the court is apprised by a timely objection), was ruled on adversely without an investigation for possible prejudice. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), mandates reversal for failure of the trial court to conduct the inquiry for prejudice.
Since the case must be retried, we need not reach the sufficiency of the evidence question.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. Weber, 578 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ot a sale. The second affidavit calculated the interest on this loan transaction was 33.8% per annum — well above the prohibited rate set by chapter 687. With all due apologies to the majority, I fail to see how Spiwak v. General Real Estate Ltd,., 546 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Samuels v. Magnum Realty Corp., 431 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) are relevant to this case. Spiwak did not involve an affidavit “too conclusory” to defend against a summary judgment. Rather, it dealt with the insufficiency o…1 / 2
-
Alan Simons Assocs., Inc. v. Deltareach Corp., N.V., 554 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…is case. Genuine issues of material fact are raised by this record as to the rent due under the subject lease and guarantee, whether an estoppel [*583] is ultimately found to be applicable to this case or not. See Spiwak v. General Real Estate Ltd., 546 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The final summary judgment under review is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Cooper v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1979)
- Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1979)