R.D., 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.
R.D. appeals his delinquency adjudication for robbery after the trial court excluded a defense witness for failure to disclose in discovery without conducting a Richardson hearing. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by failing to conduct the required inquiry into the circumstances of the discovery violation before excluding the witness.
Yes. The trial court erred by excluding the witness without first conducting a Richardson inquiry into the totality of circumstances, including whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, trivial or substantial, and whether it prejudiced the State's ability to prepare for trial. Reversal was required because the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A trial court must conduct a Richardson hearing when alerted to a potential discovery violation regarding a witness.
[2] A Richardson hearing requires the trial court to inquire into the circumstances of a discovery violation, including whether it was inadvertent or willful, trivial or subs…
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“When a trial court is alerted to a possible discovery violation, the trial court is required to make an adequate inquiry into the totality of the circumstances, including whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, whether it was trivial or substantial, and most important, whether it prejudiced the opposition's ability to prepare for trial.”
Establishes the mandatory Richardson inquiry standard that trial courts must follow when discovery violations are raised.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.D. was charged with robbery of a Marshall's Department Store. The State presented a loss prevention detective who testified that R.D. was one of two…
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 Richardson Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
R.D. appeals his delinquency adjudication for robbery. We reverse because the trial court erred in excluding a defense witness without first conducting a Richardson
hearing.
At the start of the adjudicatory hearing and in response to a question by the trial judge, R.D.’s counsel indicated that she was going to call two witnesses. The trial court asked all witnesses to stand and be sworn. After the witnesses were sworn, the State objected to the defense using a witness who was not disclosed in discovery. Counsel for R.D. explained that the witness had information regarding R.D.’s appearance at the time of the robbery. Counsel stated: “[the witness] has been here all morning and I have advised counsel for the State of his presence and of our intent of calling him as a witness.” The trial court ruled that the witness would not be permitted to testify because the defense had not previously disclosed the witness to the State.
The State presented testimony of a loss prevention detective for Marshall’s Department Store who positively identified R.D. as one of two people who stole merchandise from the men’s department and engaged in a physical altercation with the detective before fleeing from the store. The detective indicated that R.D. had changed his appearance between the robbery and the adjudicatory hearing and explained that R.D. wore his hair in dreadlocks during the robbery. R.D. testified that he was misidentified, that he was not involved in the robbery, and that he did not wear his hair in dreadlocks on the date of the robbery.
When a trial court is alerted to a possible discovery violation, the trial court is required to make an adequate inquiry into the totality of the circumstances, including whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, whether it was trivial or substantial, and most important, whether it prejudiced the opposition’s ability to prepare for trial. See Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971). Reversal is required when the trial court fails to make a sufficient Richardson inquiry and the error is not harmless. See Livigni v. State, 725 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Comer v. State, 730 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.D.B. v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
We are unable to conclude on this record that the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson inquiry before excluding the defense witness was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reversed and remanded for a new adjudicatory hearing.
WHATLEY, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charles v. State, 903 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ry into the totality of the circumstances, including whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, whether it was trivial or substantial, and, most important, whether it prejudiced the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial. See R.D. v. State, 842 So. 2d 863, 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971)); see also Sears v. State, 656 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Brown v. State, 640 So. 2d 106, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). There is neither a rebuttal nor an impea…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Jackson v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Livigni v. State, 725 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Comer v. State, 730 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)