FRANK WOLF, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Eaton, 868 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
  …whether the violation (1) was willful or inadvertent; (2) was substantial or trivial; and (3) had a prejudicial effect on the aggrieved party’s trial preparation.” Id. at 1183; accord Sims v. State, 681 So. 2d 1112, 1114 (Fla.1996); Hayden v. State, 760 So. 2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). After considering these factors and finding a Richardson violation, the trial court has discretion to choose an appropriate remedy or sanction. Hayden, 760 So. 2d at 1033. The extreme sanction of excluding evidence, howeve…
• Zeigler v. State, 813 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
  …PER CURIAM. In this criminal case, appellant raises two points. On the first point, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in handling the purported discovery violation. See, e.g., Hayden v. State, 760 So. 2d 1031, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (‘When the trial court learns of a possible discovery violation, the court must determine: 1) whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, 2) whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and 3) what effect the viol…

Authorities Cited

• State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)