W.D., 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 for grand theft and resisting arrest, but the appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing after the state introduced an oral statement that was never disclosed during pretrial discovery.
The trial court committed per se reversible error by failing to conduct a Richardson hearing after the discovery violation was raised. The defendant's objection was timely because it was made immediately after the oral statement was introduced, and no prior opportunity existed to object since there was no advance indication the statement would be presented.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by failing to conduct a Richardson hearing when a party objects to the admission of an undisclosed oral statement made by a defenda…
[2] A Richardson hearing is required when a party objects to an undisclosed oral statement and claims a discovery violation.
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“failure to conduct such a Richardson hearing was per se reversible error”
Establishes that the trial court's failure to hold a Richardson hearing when a discovery violation is properly raised constitutes automatic reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt trial, the arresting officer testified to an oral statement made by W.D. that had not been previously disclosed during pretrial discovery. W.D. imm…
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 Pretrial Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the respondent W.D. from adjudications of delinquency for grand theft and resisting arrest without violence. We reverse and remand for a new trial upon a holding that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a Richardson hearing after the arresting officer testified to an oral statement made by the respondent, which statement had not previously been disclosed during pretrial discovery.
Contrary to the state’s argument, the respondent clearly objected to the admission of such statement and raised as one of the grounds therefor that there had been a “discovery violation” with respect to the statement (T. 18-19). At that point, the trial court was obliged to conduct an inquiry as to whether there had been a discovery violation as claimed, and if so, whether the violation was intentional or negligent, whether the violation was substantial or not, and whether the ..violation prejudiced the respondent in the preparation of his defense; failure to conduct such a Richardson hearing was per se reversible error.
Moreover, the trial court’s ruling that the discovery violation objection was untimely cannot be accepted. The objection was made immediately after the brief oral statement was blurted out by the police officer at trial and could not have been interposed prior thereto as there was no advance indication that such a statement was about to be adduced; indeed, the revelation of such statement was allegedly a total surprise to the respondent. Brazell v. State, 570 So. 2d 919 (Fla.1990); Brown v. State, 515 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1987); Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986); Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020, 1022 (Fla.1979); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); Rich ardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971); R.W. v. State, 591 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); D.R. v. State, 588 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); M.H. v. State, 583 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); In re F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
The final adjudications of delinquency under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)
- Cooper v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1979)
- Wilcox v. State, 367 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1979)
- In the Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Brown v. State, 515 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1987)
- Brazell v. State, 570 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1990)
- D.R. v. State, 588 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Heilman v. Heilman, 583 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)