MARVIN J. LOISELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Richardson Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for new trial.
Over objection by appellant, his oral statement to a detective was introduced into evidence, not withstanding the state’s failure to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1)(C).
The failure to conduct a Richardson hearing cannot be said to be harmless error because of the reasonable possibility of a difference in trial preparation or strategy. State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995). Here, it is reasonably possible that the change in appellant’s strategy between opening statement and closing argument was caused by the admission of the undiscovered statement.
But for the above error, we would affirm. We find no error in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989). Nor do we believe it was error to refuse to instruct the jury as appellant requested.
STONE, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryann Acosta v. State, 856 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…f 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. Id. at 446 (internal citations and quotations omitted). In Loisell v. State, 703 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), this court reversed a conviction and held that the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing could not be said to be harmless error where it was reasonably possible that the change in appellant’s strategy between opening statement…
-
Grant v. State, 738 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rea was not created by the state’sintroduction of photos, but by the nature of his defense, which crystallized at the moment of his arrest. This case is distinguishable from cases where we have found harmful error under Schopp. In Loisell v. State, 703 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 4th DCÁ 1997), the discovery violation concerned the defendant’s oral statement to a detective, which necessitated a change in strategy between the defense attorney’s opening statement and closing argument. Mobley v. State, 705 So. 2d 609 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)