Z.B., 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 was adjudicated delinquent for battery on school property, but the appellate court reversed because the alleged batteries occurred on a public sidewalk in front of the school, not on school property as required by statute, and the trial court improperly excluded a defense witness without adequate inquiry into the discovery violation.
The alleged batteries did not occur on school property within the meaning of the statute because they took place on a public sidewalk in front of the school, not on school grounds itself. The trial court erred in excluding the defense witness without conducting an adequate Richardson inquiry, exploring the prejudice to the state, or considering less extreme remedies for the discovery violation.
[1] A battery committed on a public sidewalk adjacent to a school, but not within the school's property boundaries, does not satisfy the "on school property" element required…
[2] Excluding a defense witness for a discovery violation without conducting a Richardson inquiry constitutes 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“We conclude that the alleged batteries did not occur "on school property" within the meaning of the above statute, and that, accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to reduce the charges herein to two counts of simple battery.”
Establishes that the public sidewalk in front of the school does not constitute 'school property' under the statute, requiring reduction of charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZ.B., a juvenile, was charged with two counts of battery upon school board employees on school property. Z.B. had just gotten off the school bus and w…
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.
The respondent Z.B. appeals an adjudication of delinquency for two counts of battery upon a school board employee on public school property.
We agree with the respondent’s contention that the state failed to establish that the two batteries, which the respondent allegedly committed against two school board employees, took place “on school property” as required by Section 231.06(2), Florida Statutes (1989), and as alleged in the delinquency petition below.
The evidence at trial tended to show that the alleged batteries took place on the public sidewalk in front of South Miami Middle School; the respondent had just gotten off the school bus and was on the sidewalk, which school officials monitor, when the alleged batteries occurred.
We conclude that the alleged batteries did not occur “on school property” within the meaning of the above statute, and that, accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to reduce the charges herein to two counts of simple battery. See S.N. v. State, 463 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); cf. State v. Mitchell, 486 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Covington v. State, 359 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Beyond that, the trial court also erred in improperly excluding a defense witness from testifying at trial without conducting an adequate Richardson inquiry. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). After being notified by the state that the defendant was guilty of a discovery violation in not disclosing the identity of a defense witness to the state until the day of trial, the trial court made no effort to find out what this witness was prepared to testify to and made no inquiry. or finding as to whether the discovery violation resulted in any prejudice to the state; this in itself was reversible error.
Moreover, the trial court erroneously imposed the extreme sanction of exclusion upon concluding that a discovery violation had occurred, without exploring other remedies— such as a brief recess to allow the state to interview or depose the witness — which might have cured whatever prejudice, if any, the state had suffered; this also was reversible error. S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); see Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979); Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020, 1023 (Fla.1979); Fedd v. State, 461 So. 2d 1384, 1385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
The delinquency adjudication under review is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial on two counts of simple battery.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.O. v. State, 606 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…y “upon the campus or any other facility owned by any such school,” (b) section 228.091(2) requires a trespass “upon school property” and (c) section 877.13(1) is limited to the disruption of activities “on school board property.” See Z.B. v. State, 576 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). See generally Johnson v. State, 602 So. 2d 1288 (Fla.1992); Pedersen v. Green, 105 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1958). [*453] Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to discharge the respondent. Reversed.…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)
- Cooper v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1979)
- Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1979)
- Eladio Morales v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Fedd v. State, 461 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Mitchell, 486 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Covington v. State, 359 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Farboil Co. v. Delray Pools, Inc., 359 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)