DAVID SAWYER, 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.
The court affirmed the appellant's convictions for felony DUI and felony DWLR, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting fingerprint expert testimony despite late disclosure because the appellant failed to seek a continuance or challenge his identity.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting expert fingerprint testimony at the enhancement phase despite late disclosure when the defendant did not seek a continuance or contest his identity.
[1] Late disclosure of expert witness does not constitute abuse of discretion when defendant fails to seek continuance or challenge his identity in the record.
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 intelligenceAppellant Sawyer was convicted of felony DUI and felony DWLR. The State disclosed a fingerprint comparison expert witness after the guilt phase was ne…
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 Felony Dui cases and more on FLexlaw
STERN, KENNETH D., Associate Judge.
We affirm the appellant’s conviction of felony DUI. Appellant complains that the trial court permitted the State to present the fingerprint comparison testimony of an expert witness at the enhancement phase of the trial. The State did not disclose the witness until after the guilt phase of the trial was nearing completion. Although he claimed prejudice, appellant did not seek a continuance of the enhancement portion of the trial so he could better confront the fingerprint testimony. Nor did appellant argue that he was not the person reflected in the judgments of conviction at issue. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the expert to testify. See Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133, 1138 (Fla.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 2200, 53 L.Ed.2d 239 (1977); Staveley v. State, 744 So. 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), review denied, 760 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2000).
We affirm the conviction of felony DWLR on the basis of Sawyer v. State, 819 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, we withhold the issuance of a mandate, pending the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling upon the issue of the validity of section 322.341, Florida Statutes (2002), as to which issue Sawyer conflicts with Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Critchfield, 805 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, No. 02-386 (Fla. Apr. 24, 2002).
AFFIRMED.
STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1976)
- Velsicol Chem. Corp. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 431 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1977)
- Blocker v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Barton Protective Servs., 805 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Sawyer v. State, 819 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Stayeley v. State, 744 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)