RENE LANDRY, 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.
Landry was charged with child abuse and convicted based partly on victim testimony that Landry asked her to lie. The trial court failed to conduct a Richardson hearing after learning of this undisclosed statement, violating discovery obligations. The court reverses and remands for a new trial.
The trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a Richardson hearing. When the prosecution fails to disclose a defendant's oral statements prior to trial, a Richardson hearing is mandatory upon learning of the possible violation, even if defense counsel deposed the witness.
[1] A trial court must conduct a Richardson hearing upon learning of a possible discovery violation concerning the substance of oral statements made by the defendant.
[2] The prosecution's duty to disclose extends to a defendant's oral statements made to a witness who is not an agent of the state.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“where the State fails to disclose to the defendant, prior to trial, the substance of any oral statement allegedly made by the defendant, then the State has committed a discovery violation and the trial court must conduct a Richardson hearing upon learning of the possible violation.”
Establishes the mandatory duty to disclose defendant statements and requirement for Richardson hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLandry was charged with child abuse. At trial, the victim (Landry's daughter) testified that her father asked her to lie about the abuse. Defense coun…
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
STONE, J.
The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a Richardson1 hearing. We conclude that a hearing was required and reverse.
Landry was charged with child abuse. At trial, the victim, his daughter, testified to the facts of the charge. During direct examination, the state asked:
State: Have I or anyone — -has anyone asked you to tell a lie about this, [victim]?
[Victim]: Yes.
State: Who?
[Victim]: My dad.
At that point, defense counsel objected, claiming a discovery violation because he was never informed about the alleged statement by Landry to the victim, notwithstanding having taken the victim’s deposition. Based on the fact that defense counsel had deposed the victim at length, the trial court concluded that there had been no discovery violation.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1)(C) requires the prosecution to disclose “the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant.” “[W]here the State fails to disclose to the defendant, prior to trial, the substance of any oral statement allegedly made by the defendant, then the State has committed a discovery violation and the trial court must conduct a Richardson hearing upon learning of the possible violation.” Irish v. State, 889 So. 2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting State v. Evans, 770 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla.2000)).
The duty to disclose extends to a defendant’s statements made to a witness who is not an agent of the state. In Sears v. State, 656 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), the court reversed the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson hearing, where alleged statements made by the defendant to the victim were not disclosed. In Materno v. State, 766 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the court considered whether there had been an adequate Richardson hearing when a witness against the defendant testified to a statement not contained in the witness’ sworn statement.
A Richardson hearing is required when there is a possible discovery violation in order to flesh out whether there has indeed been a discovery violation. In this situation, by merely inquiring if defense counsel had taken the victim’s deposition, the court could not know, by its limited inquiry, whether a violation had occurred. Although the state may not have asked the question to elicit this response, and the prosecutor may not have known of the defendant’s statement to the victim until the victim responded on the stand, these determinations can be made only through the mandated hearing.
We note that, as Landry points out, the state did not ask the victim if he, or another state agent, told her to lie, but, rather, asked her if “anyone” told her to lie.
We cannot say the error was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986).
We remand for a new trial. All other issues on appeal are moot.
POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur. . Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 63 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…covery violation. Luis v. State, 851 So. 2d 773, 775-76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). “A Richardson hearing is required when there is a ‘possible discovery violation in order to flesh out whether there has indeed been a discovery violation.” Landry v. State, 931 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (emphasis in original). In conducting a Richardson hearing, the trial court must inquire as to whether the violation (1) was willful or inadvertent; (2) was substantial or trivial; and (3) had a prejudicial effect on the ag…
-
Brown v. State, 165 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…s appeal. “ ‘A Richardson hearing is required when there is a possible discovery violation in order to flesh out whether there has indeed been a discovery violation.’ ” Thomas v. State, 63 So. 3d 55, 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Landry v. State, 931 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). To conduct a Richardson hearing, “ ‘the trial court must inquire as to whether the violation (1) was willful or inadver [*729] tent; (2) was substantial or trivial; and (3) had a prejudicial effect on the aggrieved party’…
-
Garfield Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…“any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.220(b)(1)(C). This duty “extends to a defendant’s statements made to a witness who is not an agent of the state.” Landry v. State, 931 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Further, the duty to disclose a defendant’s oral statement is a continuing discovery obligation. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.2200). In this case, the defendant’s alleged threat against the victim was an “oral statement made by the…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Evans, 770 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2000)
- Sears v. State, 656 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hilton Irish v. State, 889 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Materno v. State, 766 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)