MARK D. JAMES, 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.
Mark D. James appeals his convictions for robbery with a firearm, first-degree burglary, kidnapping with a firearm, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The appellate court reverses and remands for a new trial because the trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing regarding a photograph introduced during trial that was not provided in discovery.
The trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to conduct a Richardson hearing. The state's intent to use the photograph should have been resolved at such a hearing, and the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing regarding an alleged discovery violation constitutes per se reversible error.
[1] A trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing regarding an alleged discovery violation is per se reversible error.
[2] Whether the state intended to use evidence at trial is an issue that should be resolved at a Richardson hearing.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“As the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing regarding an alleged discovery violation is per se reversible error, we reverse and remand for a new trial.”
Establishes that failure to conduct Richardson hearing is per se reversible error, the primary legal principle supporting reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a victim identification issue that was central to trial. During cross-examination of the investigating detective about a suspect nam…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Mark D. James appeals his convictions for robbery with a firearm, first-degree burglary, kidnapping with a firearm, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. On appeal, he raises several points of error. We agree with one point, that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a Richardson hearing. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
A critical issue at trial was the victim’s identification of her assailant. To explore that issue, James’ defense counsel cross-examined the investigating detective about the physical description of a certain Carl Thompson. On re-direct, the state showed the detective a photograph of Thompson and then introduced the photograph into evidence. When the defense objected that the photograph was not provided in discovery, the state responded -that the defense had “opened the door.” The court stated, “I agree it was mentioned. I don’t see — it was mentioned. Admitted.”
James argues that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing with regard to the photograph as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). The state argues there was no discovery violation because the state did not intend to use the photograph at trial. Whether the state intended to use the photograph is an issue that should have been resolved at a Richardson hearing. Ratcliff v. State, 561 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We note that the state apparently anticipated the need for the photograph because the prosecutor had it with him in the courtroom. As the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing regarding an alleged discovery violation is per se reversible eiTor, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986); Lee v. State, 538 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
We find no merit in James’ argument that the aggravated battery count is a lesser included offense of the armed robbery count. The record shows that James committed two separate acts constituting the offenses of armed robbery and aggravated battery. We also find no merit in James’ remaining issues.
Accordingly, because the trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing, we reverse James’ convictions and remand for a new trial.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pender v. State, 647 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…fense counsel asked for a Richardson hearing, claiming a discovery violation based on the state’s failure to produce the photograph.3 See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(b)(l)(J) (1993). The trial court refused. This was per se reversible error. James v. State, 639 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1986); Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). It is not subject to a harmless error analysis. Schopp v. State, 641 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. granted, 649 So. 2d 235 (Fla.199…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)
- LEE v. State, 538 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Ratcliff v. State, 561 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)