STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
YVETTA BROWN, 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.
The State of Florida sought certiorari review of a trial court order excluding a prosecution witness from testifying due to a discovery violation. The appellate court held that the trial court failed to conduct a proper Richardson hearing and departed from the essential requirements of law by excluding the witness without adequately inquiring into whether the discovery violation was willful and what alternative remedies existed.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by excluding the witness without conducting an adequate Richardson hearing. The trial court must make proper inquiries as to whether the discovery violation was willful and what reasonable alternatives exist to remedy any prejudice before excluding a witness from testifying.
[1] Certiorari review is appropriate when the state has no right to a direct appeal if the defendant is acquitted.
[2] A trial court must conduct a Richardson inquiry when a witness is excluded due to a discovery violation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Certiorari review is appropriate in a case such as this in which, if the defendant is acquitted, the State has no right to a direct appeal.”
Establishes the basis for the appellate court's jurisdiction to review the trial court's interlocutory order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State disclosed the name of a witness after the pretrial conference due to an apparent mistake on the police report. Upon learning the true identi…
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 Prejudicial Impact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s interlocutory order excluding its witness from testifying at trial. Certiorari review is appropriate in a case such as this in which, if the defendant is acquitted, the State has no right to a direct appeal. See State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250, 253-254 (Fla.1988); State v. Sowers, 763 So. 2d 394, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We hold the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, and grant the petition.
The State alleges two reasons for certiorari review, only one of which we find has merit. The State disclosed the name of the witness after the pre-trial conference, apparently due to a mistake on the police report. Upon learning the true identity of the witness, the public defender’s office certified a conflict of interest based on its representation of the newly identified witness. When the public defender moved to withdraw from the case, or alternatively to exclude the witness from testifying, the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Based on the appendix before us, it appears that, at most, only a cursory inquiry was conducted. Generally, in conducting a Richardson hearing, the trial court is concerned about the accused’s ability to prepare for trial due to a discovery violation by the State. Here, by excluding the witness from testifying, the trial court solved any prejudicial impact the late disclosure would have on the defendant, but it did not address whether there was a discovery violation and, if so, whether the violation was willful, and what remedies, other than excluding the witness, were available to undo any prejudice to the defendant. See Donaldson v. State, 656 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(the extreme remedy of excluding a witness should be invoked by the trial court only after it has made an adequate inquiry as to whether any reasonable alternatives may be used to overcome or mitigate possible prejudice). See also Sowers, 763 So. 2d at 402 (Miner, J., concurring and dissenting). The trial court should have made the requisite findings before excluding the witness from testifying at trial.
Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED, the Order Excluding Witness from Testifying for State is quashed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOOTH, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farneth v. State, 945 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…d, the proper remedy when the trial court has applied the incorrect law is for the appellate court to remand to the trial court for it to reconsider its ruling in light of the correct law, taking additional evidence if necessary. See State v. Brown, 782 So. 2d 526, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (remanding for further proceedings when the trial court failed to make the requisite findings after a Richardson hearing); State v. Snell, 391 So. 2d 299, 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (remanding for further proceedings when the t…
-
State v. Gerry, 855 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…one of its witnesses from testifying at trial, cer-tiorari review is appropriate because the state has no right to a direct appeal in the event the defendant is acquitted. See State v. Scheuschner, 829 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); State v. Brown, 782 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Hence, in the instant case, the State properly challenges the trial court’s order through a petition for writ of certiorari. We next determine whether the trial court’s ruling violates clearly established legal principles resul…
-
State v. Cruz, 851 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…. Certiorari review of a non-final pretrial order is appropriate in a case such as this in which, if the defendant is acquitted, the state has no right to a direct appeal. State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250, 253-54 (Fla.1988); see also State v. Brown, 782 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(granting certiorari review of interlocutory order excluding state witness from testifying at trial). When a trial court is made aware of a possible discovery violation by the state within the course of the proceedings, the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Donnie Lee Donaldson v. State, 656 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- State v. Sowers, 763 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)