TIMOTHY BAYLESS, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Lowe v. State, 259 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 2018)
  …it appears the trial court excluded the testimony as a "first resort," id. at 163, as opposed to a last resort. Indeed, the trial court does not appear to have "considered less extreme alternatives before excluding the testimony." Dawson v. State , 20 So. 3d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). However, we conclude that any error by the trial court was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Prior to the State's objection, the jury was made aware that Dr. Riebsame conducted a risk assessment using a statistical mode…
• Martin v. State, 41 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …State was prejudiced, because the evidence was relevant and the trial court did not consider any other alternative to exclusion). However, the failure to conduct an adequate Richardson hearing is subject to harmless error analysis. Dawson v. State, 20 So. 3d 1016, 1022 n. 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing Comer, 730 So. 2d at 775). In State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995), the Florida Supreme Court provided the following guidance in determining whether a Richardson violation was harmless error: In d…
• Sanchez-Andujar v. State, 60 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
  …accordance with Richardson requirements, exclusion of witness previously undisclosed on defense’s witness list was too severe a sanction.” Comer, 730 So. 2d at 775 (citing L.W. v. State, 618 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). See also Dawson v. State, 20 So. 3d 1016, 1020 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting “that a trial court must address all three prongs of the Richardson inquiry; otherwise, the court’s analysis is not adequate”). More fundamentally, “[r]elevant evidence should not be excluded from the jury unl…

Authorities Cited

• Rogers v. State, 966 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)