LAKEITH SHARIF, F/K/A BYRON MERICK, 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 state's failure to disclose a rebuttal witness and the trial court's inadequate inquiry into that failure mandate reversal of the convictions.
The state presented a rebuttal witness who contradicted the appellant's testimony, despite not revealing the witness prior to trial. The appellant obj…
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 Simple Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
The appellant challenges convictions for cocaine possession, resisting arrest without violence, opposing or obstructing an officer without violence, and simple battery. We have considered and reverse each of the convictions and direct the conduct of a new trial.
The state did not reveal a rebuttal witness who, over appellant’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 conviction. Ratcliff. Moreover, even in the absence of a timely objection, a per se basis for reversal arises from failure to fulfill the Richardson requirement. Lee v. State, 538 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
We are not persuaded by the state’s contention that the undisclosed rebuttal witness’s testimony was not prejudicial. Potts v. State, 403 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Had the appellant been able to anticipate such testimony, his preparation for trial might have proceeded differently.
Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand this matter for a new trial.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 640 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…r’s testimony regarding the defendant’s statements to him. Trial strategy would clearly have been affected if the defense had been timely advised of the substance of the defendant’s statements as required by the discovery rules. See Sharif v. State, 589 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Learning of the statements after making affirmative representations in his opening statement necessarily required the defense attorney to engage in “back stepping.” The harm was already done. Accordingly we reverse and remand fo…
-
Wilson v. State, 261 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…esses who have not provided a written report and curriculum vitae or who are going to testify.” The fact that the expert was a rebuttal witness does not alter the State’s obligation to disclose him as a witness to the defense. Sharif v. State, 589 So. 2d 960, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (“The identity of rebuttal witnesses is not excepted from the state’s discovery obligation prescribed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b).”). Here, the trial court incorrectly concluded that “a rebuttal witn…
-
Purdie Burkes v. State, 946 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…sclosed, the trial judge overruled the objection. While we disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that rebuttal witnesses are not subject to the discovery requirements imposed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b), see Sharif v. State, 589 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that identity of rebuttal witnesses is not excepted from State’s discovery obligation), we nevertheless affirm, because the State was under no obligation to disclose Corporal Rayner’s mid-trial observations at the acciden…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- LEE v. State, 538 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Potts v. State, 403 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Ratcliff v. State, 561 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)