WILLIAM JOSEPH O'ROURKE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 trial court's failure to conduct an adequate Richardson hearing for a discovery violation is not per se reversible error and is subject to harmless error analysis.
The district court certified a question regarding whether a proffer of excluded evidence could cure a deficient Richardson hearing. The trial court's …
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 Proffer Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review O’Rourke v. State, 645 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA1994), in which the district court of appeal certified the following question' as one of great public importance:
WHERE THE COURT’S INQUIRY INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A DEFENSE DISCOVERY VIOLATION FAILS TO ADDRESS THE EFFECT, IF ANY, THE VIOLATION HAS ON THE STATE’S ABILITY TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL, BUT A PROFFER IS MADE OF THE EVIDENCE EXCLUDED ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIOLATION, CAN THE PROFFER BE USED BY THE REVIEWING COURT TO DETERMINE THAT THE DEFICIENCY IN THE RICHARDSON HEARING CONDUCTED WAS HARMLESS ERROR?
Id. at 571. We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Subsequent to the decision below, this Court held that a trial court’s failure to conduct adequate inquiry into an alleged discovery violation pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), would no longer constitute per se reversible error. State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995). We reasoned that such a violation was subject to the application of a harmless error analysis. The district court of appeal employed this harmless error analysis in deciding the case, and we agree with its conclusion.
Therefore, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the decision below.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. OVERTON and HARDING, JJ., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 728 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…on have reasonably affected the outcome of the case. If the answer to that inquiry is positive, the error is not harmless. See C.D.B. v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); O’Rourke v. State, 645 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), approved, 661 So. 2d 800 (Fla.1995). But see M.N. v. State, 724 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Applying the proper standard in this case, it is reasonable to find that the excluded receipt might have been viewed by the jury as important corroboration of Johnson’s version…
-
Panis v. State, 689 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995); O’Rourke v. State, 645 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), decision approved, 661 So. 2d 800 (Fla.1995).…
-
C.D.B. v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…Id. at 1020. Harmless error analysis is also necessary when the defense’s violation of a discovery rule results in exclusion of defense evidence without an adequate Richardson hearing. State v. Pender, 661 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1995); O’Rourke v. State, 661 So. 2d 800 (Fla.1995), aff'g O’Rourke v. State, 645 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). “[I]n the vast majority of cases it will be readily apparent that the record is insufficient to support a finding of harmless error.” Schopp, 653 So. 2d at 1021. When defense…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- O'Rourke v. State, 645 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)