JAMES LEE MINNICK, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Thomas v. State, 63 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
  …fication to the trial court that the State did not list Tianga as an expert, all while Tianga was on the witness stand, we hold that Thomas timely objected to the State’s discovery violation, thus preserving the issue on appeal. See Picket v. State, 32 So. 3d 638, 639-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)(finding preservation of alleged discovery violation when raised on the first day of trial); Jones, 32 So. 3d at 709-10 (finding preservation of alleged discovery violation when raised before the state’s direct examination…
• Garfield Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …ion ended at 5:00 p.m. on the day the victim testified, defense counsel could have conducted her investigation that evening before cross-examining the victim the next morning. The defense counters by citing to our recent decision in Pickel v. State, 32 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). There, the defense complained that it had been prejudiced by the trial court’s denial of a motion for a continuance after the state disclosed its DNA statistical expert on the first day of trial. Id. at 638-39. We agreed, stat […
• Guzman v. State, 42 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
  …oss-examination before raising the alleged violation. In considering this issue, we have found cases involving a defendant preserving an alleged discovery violation for review when he raises the violation on the first day of trial, Pickel v. State, 32 So. 3d 638, 639-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); before the state’s direct examination, Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 709-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); during the state’s direct examina [*944] tion, State v. Evans, 770 So. 2d 1174, 1182 (Fla.2000); after the state’s direct…