DONNIE LEE DONALDSON, 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.
Donnie Lee Donaldson was convicted of cocaine sale within 1000 feet of a school, but the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by excluding critical defense witness testimony without exploring reasonable alternatives to mitigate prejudice.
Yes. The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the witness without first determining whether other reasonable alternatives, such as a recess or continuance, could overcome the alleged prejudice. Witness exclusion is an extreme sanction that should be a last resort only in the most compelling circumstances, particularly when the testimony relates to critical issues and is not cumulative.
[1] The severe sanction of witness exclusion should be a last resort reserved only for the most extreme or compelling circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony…
[2] A trial court's discretion to exclude a witness should only be invoked after conducting an adequate inquiry to determine whether any other reasonable alternatives might b…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 severe sanction of witness exclusion should be a last resort reserved only for the most extreme or compelling circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts and the testimony is not cumulative.”
Establishes the high bar for excluding witness testimony and that exclusion is an extreme remedy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonaldson was charged with selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. The defense sought to call a witness who would testify that three weeks befor…
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 Undue Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
Donnie Lee Donaldson appeals his conviction for the sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, urging that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of a defense witness. We agree and reverse.
At trial, defense attempted to place on the stand a witness who would testify that, some three weeks prior to trial, he overheard the confidential informant state to two individuals that his attempt to carry out a controlled buy of cocaine from Donaldson failed and that Donaldson was in fact innocent of the charged offense. At a hearing outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel explained that he had only recently been informed of this witness. The prosecutor, protesting that the state was notified of this witness only one day prior to trial, requested that the witness’ testimony be excluded on the basis that it would take undue time to investigate this witness’ account and to locate the two individuals to whom the informant was supposedly speaking. The trial judge, expressing the view that the state would suffer undue prejudice as a result of the late notice of this witness and the resulting lack of opportunity to investigate the veracity of his testimony, ordered the trial to proceed without the defense witness being permitted to testify.
The severe sanction of witness exclusion should be a last resort reserved only for the most extreme or compelling circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts and the testimony is not cumulative. Floyd v. State, 514 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Although it is within a trial court’s discretion to order exclusion of a witness, this extreme remedy should be invoked only after the trial court has conducted an adequate inquiry to determine whether any other reasonable alternatives might be used to overcome or mitigate possible prejudice. Miller v. State, 636 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Lee v. State, 534 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Wilkerson v. State, 461 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (relevant evidence should not be excluded from the jury unless no other remedy suffices, and it is incumbent upon the trial court to explore other reasonable alternatives employable to overcome or mitigate any possible prejudice).
With all due deference to the trial court’s broad discretion in this matter, we are unable to affirm the exclusion of the witness in this case. Even assuming prejudice to the state, no effort was made to determine whether reasonable means could have been employed to overcome the prejudice, such as a recess or continuance to afford the state the opportunity to investigate the witness’ account, without resorting to the drastic exclusion of the witness. See Baker v. State, 522 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Austin v. State, 461 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Donaldson, who testified at trial, denied selling cocaine to the confidential informant. As a result of the exclusion of his sole defense witness, Donaldson was unduly limited in the presentation of his defense. Floyd. We find that the error was not harmless since it is possible that the testimony of the witness could have produced a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors sufficient to tip the scales in favor of acquittal. Baker. REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Comer v. State, 730 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…urt reversibly erred by sustaining objection and excluding testimony without further inquiry). The State, on the other hand, relies on the general rule that a trial court has broad discretion regarding the exclusion of a witness. Donaldson v. State, 656 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (although trial court has discretion to order exclusion of witness, “this extreme remedy” should not be invoked until after court has conducted adequate inquiry). In Richardson, the Supreme Court of Florida held that when th…
-
State v. Sowers, 763 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…tnesses resulted in their exclusion because trial court made “no effort ... to determine whether reasonable means could have been employed to overcome the prejudice without resorting to the total exclusion of the witnesses”). In Donaldson v. State, 656 So. 2d 580, 580-81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), wherein a defense witness was excluded for late disclosure, we reversed for a new trial because the trial court made “no effort” to determine whether reasonable means such as recess or continuance were available to overc…
-
Jacomiah Walker v. State, 886 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a witness, who had been disclosed to the State, to testify at trial. The State concedes error. Donaldson v. State, 656 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Thus, Appellant’s conviction and sentence are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED. BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., CONCUR.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 461 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Sherwin James Miller v. State, 636 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Wilkerson v. State, 461 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Baker v. State, 522 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- LEE v. State, 534 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Floyd v. State, 514 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)