FRANK EARL RATCLIFF, 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's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing after a discovery violation by the state constitutes per se reversible error.
The defendant was convicted of resisting arrest with violence. The state failed to include a rebuttal witness on its witness list, violating discovery…
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 Rebuttal Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for resisting arrest with violence. Of his various contentions on appeal we find merit in one and reverse and remand for a new trial.
That contention is that the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson
*
hearing after an objection by defendant to a discovery violation by the state constituted per se reversible error. See Lee v. State, 538 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); D.M. v. State, 421 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The violation was the failure of the state to includfe on its witness list the name of a rebuttal witness called by the state. Rebuttal witnesses are not excepted from the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. See Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); D.M.
While the state makes the argument on appeal that the need to call the witness could not have been anticipated, that was an aspect which should have been resolved at a Richardson hearing. See Lee. Nor do we agree with the state’s argument that the contention was not preserved for appellate review by a specific request for a Richardson hearing. See Lee; D.M.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur. *
Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elledge v. State, 613 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1993)…r Kuck because it had already assembled a “composite exhibit” of the disciplinary reports, and the exhibit had already been marked prior to the time defense counsel asked for a side-bar conference. We approve the view expressed in Ratcliff v. State, 561 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), that when the State asserts that it is excused from compliance with discovery because it could not have anticipated defense evidence, the question whether it could reasonably have anticipated evidence should be resolved in…
-
Holmes v. State, 642 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…al, the objection made in this case was sufficient to bring the possible violation to the trial court’s attention and thus trigger the need for further inquiry. See Elledge v. State, 613 So. 2d 434 (Fla.1993) (citing with approval Ratcliff v. State, 561 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), for the proposition that when the state claims no discovery violation has occurred, the issue should be determined in a Richardson hearing). The trial court’s failure to inquire is not subject to a harmless error analysis; it con…
-
Lakeith Sharif v. State, 589 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…nt’s objection, testified and contradicted an aspect of the appellant’s testimony. The identity of rebuttal witnesses is not excepted from the state’s discovery obligation prescribed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b). Ratcliff v. State, 561 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The trial court’s inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the state’s non-compliance with the discovery rules was inadequate. In that circumstance, Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), requires reversal of the convi…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- LEE v. State, 538 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- D.M. v. State, 421 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)