DAVID WAYNE RENCZKOWSKI, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child because trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing on the state's discovery violation regarding a rebuttal witness, which prejudiced the defense.
A trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing on a discovery violation is harmful error when the state's late disclosure of a rebuttal witness causes procedural prejudice to the defense.
[1] A trial court's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing on a discovery violation constitutes harmful error when the state's untimely disclosure of a rebuttal witness caus…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“state must prove that there is no reasonable possibility that defendant's trial preparation or strategy would have been different had the violation not occurred; if appellate court can determine from record that defense was procedurally prejudiced by discovery violation, error must be considered harmful”
Court citing State v. Schopp standard for evaluating harmlessness of discovery violations
Renczkowski was convicted of lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child. After the state presented most of its case, it informed defense coun…
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 Procedural Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
David Renczkowski appeals from his judgment and sentence for lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a Richardson1 hearing on the state’s discovery violation. Renczkowski raises six additional points on appeal; however, because the first issue requires reversal, we decline to discuss the remaining issues.
After the state had. presented most of its ease, it informed defense counsel that it would call a new witness in rebuttal if Renc-zkowski testified. This new development caused the defense to reconsider having Renczkowski testify. The state’s failure to timely reveal the witness resulted in prejudice to Renczkowski because of defense counsel’s assertion in his opening remarks to the jury that Renczkowski would testify. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson hearing was not harmless error. See State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1995) (state must prove that there is no reasonable possibility that defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been different had the violation not occurred; if appellate court can determine from record that defense was procedurally prejudiced by discovery violation, error must be considered harmful). Thus, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mobley v. State, 705 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…opp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1995), “only if the appellate court can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless.” See also Renczkowski v. State, 693 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). When dealing with Richardson issues, the general rule for the vast majority of cases continues to be a finding of harmful error when discovery violations occur. A finding of harmless error is clearly the exception rather than the…
-
Whetstone v. Whetstone, 710 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…ary relief based on a temporary change in circumstances. See Pitts v. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Manning v. Manning, 600 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); McConnell v. McConnell, 552 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Abdella v. Abdella, 693 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Bain v. Bain, 687 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Bennett v. Department of Rev., 664 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). This type of relief differs from a permanent modification, which requires the showing of a permanent change in cir…
-
Colette O. deLABRY v. David J. Sales, 134 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…2012). Where the original amount is based upon an agreement between the parties, the burden is heavier. Id. “[A] substantial decrease in a parent’s earnings does not in all circumstances require a reduction in support payments.” Abdella v. Abdella, 693 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Cimitier v. Cimitier, 579 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)). “The trial court must look at all the assets available to the parent to determine the parent’s ability to pay.” Id. See also Beal v. Beal, 714 So. 2d 568,…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)