JAMES J. DAVIE, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial where the trial court excluded critical defense evidence (dental records) showing a gold front tooth on the defendant without conducting a Richardson inquiry into prejudice or considering alternative sanctions. The court held that failing to inquire into prejudicial effects of a discovery violation and imposing the extreme sanction of evidence exclusion without considering alternatives constitutes reversible error.
Yes. The trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry into prejudicial effects of the discovery violation and its imposition of the extreme sanction of evidence exclusion without considering less drastic alternatives constitutes per se reversible error requiring a new trial.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to conduct an inquiry into the prejudicial nature of a discovery violation before imposing sanctions.
[2] The omission of a hearing to determine the prejudicial effect of an untimely discovery presentation constitutes per se reversible error.
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“Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971) requires the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether a discovery violation has resulted in substantial prejudice to the opposing party before exercising its discretion with respect to the violation. The omission of this inquiry is per se reversible error.”
Establishes the mandatory Richardson requirement and that failure to conduct the inquiry is reversible per se
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Davie was charged with selling cocaine to an undercover police officer in February 1988. The officer testified she did not notice the cocain…
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 Richardson Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry as to the prejudicial nature of a defense discovery violation as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
The defense contended that an undercover police officer had misidentified the defendant as the man who sold cocaine to her in February 1988. The officer testified at trial that she did not notice that the cocaine seller had a gold front tooth, engraved with a “J”. However the defendant had such a tooth and his dental records documented that it was implanted two months before the incident which lead to his arrest. The dental records countered the undercover officer’s testimony and thus supported the genuine nature of the issue of the accuracy of the officer’s identification of the defendant.
Defense counsel waited until the middle of trial to produce the dental records and the trial court agreed with the state’s objection that the evidence was untimely presented. Without inquiring as to the prejudicial effect of the untimely presentation of the dental records, the trial court excluded the evidence. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971) requires the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether a discovery violation has re-suited in substantial prejudice to the opposing party before exercising its discretion with respect to the violation. The omission of this inquiry is per se reversible error. In Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also, Patterson v. State, 419 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988); Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979) (Richardson requirements are equally applicable to discovery violations committed by the defense.) Compounding this error, the court visited the most extreme sanction on the defense without considering the appropriateness of a remedy other than exclusion of relevant evidence. See Patterson; S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988) (Exclusion of evidence is the most extreme sanction and should not be imposed where an alternative is available.) For these reasons, we
REVERSE and REMAND for a NEW TRIAL.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P., (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Biggs Pixley Kerr, 562 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…n a system in which the search for truth is the principal goal, the severe sanction of evidence exclusion for failure to comply with the rules of procedure should be a last resort and reserved for extreme or aggravated circumstances. Davie v. State, 555 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In State v. Saldarriaga, 486 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the court concluded that where the failure of the state to produce a witness is based upon negligence rather than willful noncompliance, and where the facts do not sup…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)
- Patterson v. State, 419 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- In the Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Eladio Morales v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)