A.M., A CHILD, 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 erred by failing to conduct a Richardson hearing after a potential discovery violation concerning an undisclosed statement by the defendant.
The state failed to disclose a statement made by the defendant during discovery. The defense objected when the statement was revealed at trial and req…
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 Hearsay Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence for attempted burglary of a dwelling.1 The trial court erred by failing to conduct a “Richardson” hearing when it appeared at trial that the state committed a discovery violation by not revealing a statement made by appellant.
In response to the appellant’s demand for discovery, the state submitted the name and address of Officer Whitehurst as a witness. The state also responded that it was “unknown” whether the prosecution had possession, control or knowledge of any statements by the defendant. At trial, the officer testified that the defendant falsely responded to questioning by stating that his name was “Elmo Smith.” The defense objected and requested a mistrial immediately for prosecutorial misconduct.
Although the state asserts that the discovery violation issue is raised on appeal for the first time, and that only a hearsay objection was raised at trial, our review of the record reflects defense counsel’s timely statement to the court:
I’m going to object at this time, Judge. There’s no mention of any statements being given by the defendant anywhere in the discovery.
The trial court made no inquiry into the surrounding circumstances pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971) after the possible discovery violation was brought to its attention. Therefore, reversal is mandated even if the error is harmless. E.g. Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986); Raffone v. State, 483 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
The state’s argument that, patently, the defense knew of the witness and failed to depose him is insufficient to overcome the strict mandate of Richardson. E.g. Lavigne v. State, 349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur. . The state concedes that there is a clerical error on the commitment order that incorrectly re-fleets a burglary conviction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.N. v. State, 724 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…the defendant affirmatively appear in the record. 246 So. 2d at 775 (emphasis added)(quoting Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744, 747-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)). Since the foregoing requirement applies equally in juvenile proceedings, see A.M. v. State, 593 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and to defense discovery violations, see Livingston v. State, 575 So. 2d 1349, 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), appellant’s failure to list the co-defendant as a witness constituted a Richardson violation. Although a trial court…
-
Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…tatements. The fact that the defense may have known the witness’s name and failed to depose him is insufficient to overcome the state’s failure to inform the defense of a statement made by the defendant to which the witness testifies. A.M. v. State, 593 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The trial court commented that the testimony might be prejudicial, but it was not grounds for a mistrial. We disagree. The appellant had a strong insanity defense which was completely undermined by this discovery violation. We…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)
- Lavigne v. State, 349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Raffone v. State, 483 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)