A.C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A juvenile appellant was adjudicated delinquent after the trial court excluded testimony from a corroborating witness due to a discovery violation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the witness without first conducting an adequate hearing and considering less severe alternatives such as a continuance.
The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the corespondent's testimony without conducting an adequate inquiry under Richardson v. State and without determining whether alternative, less severe sanctions would be appropriate. The adjudication of delinquency is reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding defense witnesses when less severe sanctions, such as a recess to allow the prosecution to interview the witnesses, would…
[2] The dismissal of an information does not necessarily terminate reciprocal discovery rules invoked under that information if the case number is retained and pleadings are…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Before excluding the testimony, the trial court should have conducted an adequate hearing as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).”
Establishes the requirement for a Richardson hearing before imposing discovery sanctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA.C., a juvenile, was charged with delinquency. At the adjudicatory hearing, after A.C. testified on his own behalf, his counsel announced an intentio…
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
PER CURIAM.
The respondent, A.C., appeals his adjudication of delinquency and seeks a new adjudicatory hearing based on the trial court’s exclusion of the correspondent’s testimony at the hearing. We reverse.
The trial court granted the corespondent’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. After the respondent had testified on his own behalf, the respondent’s counsel announced his intention to call the corespondent as a witness. The respondent’s counsel proffered that the corespondent would corroborate the respondent’s version of the disputed events which formed the basis for the charges in the case. The court immediately responded that the state should have had the right to know ahead of time that the corespondent was going to testify. The respondent’s counsel suggested that there were alternatives to exclusion, such as a recess to give the state an opportunity to depose the corespondent. The state, however, argued that it would be prejudiced by the corespondent’s testimony.
The court ruled that the corespondent could not testify because he had not been included in discovery.
The respondent filed this appeal contending that the trial court erred in excluding the corespondent as a defense witness without making a full inquiry into the alleged discovery violation by the respondent. We agree.
Respondent’s counsel did not list the corespondent as a witness as required by Rule 8.770(a)(2)(i) of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure (1989) and, thereby, committed a discovery violation. However, before excluding the testimony, the trial court should have conducted an adequate hearing as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). The trial court erred because it ascertained that there had been a discovery violation and excluded the cor espondent’s testimony solely on that basis. See S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
[I]t is an abuse of discretion for a trial judge to ‘invok[e] the severe sanction of prohibiting the defense from calling ... witnesses instead of granting a recess and allowing the prosecutor to interview the witnesses and satisfy himself as to whether the prosecution would be prejudiced by the witnesses being allowed to testify.’
S.G., 518 So. 2d at 966 (quoting Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)). “In a non-jury proceeding, as here, the failure to utilize the expedient of a recess is even less understandable.” S.G., 518 So. 2d at 966.
Accordingly, since the trial court did not make the required inquiry and did not determine whether an alternative less severe than exclusion would suffice, the respondent’s adjudication of delinquency is reversed.
Reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Interest of J.M. & R.M., 579 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…a continuing one. When it has been ascertained that there has been a discovery violation, rather than exclusion, the court should conduct a Richardson inquiry to determine the existence or extent of prejudice caused by the violation. A. C. v. State, 566 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Here, the guardian contended that HRS violated discovery rules by failing to provide the guardian with the name of Ms. Schauwecker, the adult caregiver who worked with R.M. while she was in HRS custody, and by failing to furnish…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Eladio Morales v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)