JOHN RANDALL BARBEE, 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.
Barbee appeals his conviction, arguing that the state's failure to provide exactly 10 days' notice of similar-fact evidence (providing only 9 days) should automatically render that evidence inadmissible. The court affirmed, holding that procedural violations require reversal only if they result in prejudice to the defendant, not simply because of technical noncompliance.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the similar-fact evidence despite the one-day delay in notice. Violation of a procedural rule does not require reversal of a conviction unless the record shows that noncompliance resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant. The harmless error standard applies to procedural violations, including those in the Florida Evidence Code.
[1] A procedural rule's violation does not require reversal unless noncompliance resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant.
[2] Statutory notice requirements for offering similar-fact evidence are subject to harmless error analysis.
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“the violation of a rule of procedure prescribed by this Court does not call for a reversal of a conviction unless the record disclosed that noncompliance with the rule resulted in prejudice or harm, to the defendant”
Establishes the harmless error standard that applies to procedural violations in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state intended to introduce evidence of other criminal offenses against Barbee under Florida law. The state provided written notice of these simil…
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 Statutory Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
This appeal raises one issue: Is the state’s failure to strictly comply with the ten-day notice requirement of section 90.-404(2)(b)(l), Florida Statutes (1991) in respect to similar-fact evidence, fatal per se to admissibility of that evidence? That section provides:
When the state in a criminal action intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under paragraph (a), no fewer than 10 days before trial, the state shall furnish to the accused a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information....
In this case the notice was given nine days before trial. The appellant, although conceding he was not prejudiced by the state’s failure and that the failure was not willful, contends the statutory rule must be strictly construed and precludes judicial discretion to excuse the tardiness of the notice. The trial court disagreed, held a Richardson1 hearing, and allowed the similar-fact evidence to be introduced at trial.
We agree with the trial court that the instant situation is controlled by Richardson, wherein the Florida Supreme Court held:
... [W]e hold that the violation of a rule of procedure prescribed by this Court does not call for a reversal of a conviction unless the record disclosed that noncom pliance with the rule resulted in prejudice or harm, to the defendant All of the four District Courts of Appeal have now so held and we now place our stamp of approval upon this principle. [Citations omitted]. This is particularly true in view of the purpose of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. As stated in Rule 1.020 of the rules themselves: “These rules are intended to provide for the first determination of every criminal proceeding. They shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration.” Furthermore, the Rule in question must be considered by an appellate court in pari materia with the provisions of our harmless error statute, viz, F.S. 92j.S3, F.S.A. which provides that rulings or proceedings in criminal cases that are not prejudicial or harmful do not require reversal.... (Emphasis added).
Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771, 774 (Fla.1971).
This principle recognized in Richardson applies with equal force to section 90.-404(2)(b)(l), Florida Statutes, which, while enacted by the legislature, has, to the extent it is procedural, been adopted by our supreme court. See In re Florida Evidence Code, 372 So. 2d 1369 (Fla.1979).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771, 774 (Fla. 1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adside v. State, 722 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…Adside’s actions which gave rise to the loitering or prowling charge. Under these circumstances there is no reasonable possibility that the improper admission of the similar fact evidence contributed to Mr. Adside’s convictions. See Barbee v. State, 630 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also §§ 59.041, 924.33, Fla. Stat. [*230] (1995). Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Adside’s convictions. Mr. Adside next maintains the trial court erred in ordering him to pay court costs in each of the six cases and in imposing…
-
State v. Fahner, 794 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ult in exclusion of evidence. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether there has been prejudice to the accused. See State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995) (discovery); Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771, 774 (Fla.1971) (same); Barbee v. State, 630 So. 2d 655, 655-56 (Fla. 5th DCA [*719] 1994) (ten-day notice requirement for similar fact evidence). In the present case the claimed harm was the loss of the defendant’s opportunity to object to the subpoena for hospital records. That harm has been cured by…
-
Dollar v. State, 685 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…gh to merit reversal, unless it was shown to be harmful error (or of a fundamental or constitutional stature, which this one is not), and therefore prejudicial to the defendant’s case. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986); Barbee v. State, 630 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1993). Pursuant to section 924.33, and case law, the burden of showing harmful error is on the appellant. The statute provides: (1) no judgment shall be reversed unless it injuriously affects the substanti…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- In re Florida Evidence Code, 372 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1979)