DAWN GUERRIE, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Dawn Guerrie's conviction for purchasing cocaine due to prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor improperly questioned Guerrie about a cocaine pipe found in her purse that had not been disclosed during discovery, violating the Richardson rule, which constituted highly prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
The court reversed the conviction because the prosecutor's cross-examination about the undisclosed cocaine pipe constituted reversible error under the Richardson rule. The court rejected Guerrie's claims that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on attempted purchase of cocaine as a lesser included offense.
[1] A prosecutor's reference to undisclosed evidence, even for impeachment purposes, constitutes a discovery violation requiring a new trial when the evidence is inadmissible…
[2] A trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry into an undisclosed discovery violation requires a new trial.
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“Permitting counsel to cross-examine appellant about the cocaine pipe having been found in her purse allowed the prosecutor to accomplish indirectly what the prosecutor could not accomplish directly. There is no exception to the Richardson rule for impeachment.”
Establishes that the court applied the Richardson rule to bar indirect use of undisclosed evidence even for impeachment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuerrie was one of three people in a vehicle involved in a reverse sting operation to purchase cocaine. Guerrie testified she did not participate in t…
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 Impeachment Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellant argues for a reversal of her conviction for purchasing cocaine because the evidence was insufficient, because the court did not give a lesser included instruction, and because the prosecutor referred to a cocaine pipe found in appellant’s purse which the state had not disclosed during discovery. We reverse because of the reference to the pipe.
Appellant, along with two other people who were occupying the same vehicle, became involved in the purchase of cocaine in a reverse sting operation. At trial, appellant testified that she had not participated in the purchase, but only happened to be in the vehicle when the other two occupants made the purchase. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked her why she was the only one of the three who had a cocaine pipe in her purse. Appellant objected and moved for a mistrial because the state had not disclosed the existence of the pipe in response to a request for discovery. Although it sustained the objection because the pipe had not been listed, the court indicated that the existence of the pipe could become relevant to impeach appellant if she testified that she was not familiar with cocaine. The prosecutor then elicited testimony to that effect, and the court then allowed the prosecutor to ask appellant why she had the cocaine pipe in her purse.
The court did not reach the point in this case of conducting an inquiry pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), presumably because it was clear that the cocaine pipe, not having been disclosed in discovery, was inadmissible. If the court had admitted the cocaine pipe into evidence without a Richardson inquiry, a new trial would be required under Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125, 127 (Fla.1986). Permitting counsel to cross-examine appellant about the cocaine pipe having been found in her purse allowed the prosecutor to accomplish indirectly what the prosecutor could not accomplish directly. There is no exception to the Richardson rule for impeachment. Smith, 500 So. 2d at 127.
Although appellant’s involvement in the purchase of cocaine was sufficient to support her conviction, the evidence did show that the officer involved in the sting operation handed the cocaine to the driver and received the money from the other passenger. But for the improper reference to the cocaine pipe found in appellant’s purse, the jury might well have acquitted her. We therefore conclude that the reference to the pipe was highly prejudicial here and requires a new trial.
As to appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted purchase of cocaine, we agree with the state that this was not error because the only evidence here showed a completed offense. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.510(a).
Reversed.
DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1986)