WILLIAM H. RICHARDSON, 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.
Richardson appeals his arson conviction, challenging the state's failure to timely provide a witness list as required by Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1.220(e). The appellate court affirmed the conviction but emphasized that the state's noncompliance with disclosure rules is mandatory and future violations could result in reversal or new trial.
The court affirmed Richardson's conviction, finding no prejudice from the state's noncompliance with the disclosure rule. However, the court held that Rule 1.220(e) is mandatory and that future violations of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure by the state could result in reversal or new trial.
[1] A prosecuting attorney must comply with mandatory rules of criminal procedure regarding the disclosure of witness lists once invoked by the defendant.
[2] Noncompliance with mandatory rules of criminal procedure concerning witness list disclosure can lead to reversal or a new trial.
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“Rule 1.220(e) is mandatory in its direction that once the defendant chooses to set it into motion, the prosecuting attorney shall furnish the required witness list within the specified time.”
Establishes that the disclosure rule imposes mandatory obligations on the state
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson was convicted of arson after a jury trial in Hillsborough County Criminal Court and sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary. On De…
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.
This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction of the offense of arson after a jury trial in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record. Appellant was sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary.
On December 5, 1968, appellant filed a Motion for a List of Witnesses, a Motion for a List of Witnesses Upon Whose Evidence the Information is Based,1 and an Offer to Furnish State With List of Defense Witnesses2 On December 11, 1968, appellee filed a list of witnesses which included no addresses.
On December 16, 1968, the day before the trial began, appellee filed a list of six additional witnesses, including three addresses. On the same day appellee filed an amended witness list naming two more witnesses with no addresses.
A careful study of the record indicates that appellant was not prejudiced by appellee’s noncompliance with the rule.
*870We would like to point out, however, that Rule 1.220(e) is mandatory in its direction that once the defendant chooses to set it into motion, the prosecuting attorney shall furnish the required witness list within the specified time. The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure were promulgated with the intent that they would be complied with. Wé will in the future expect the State to comply with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The noncompliance thereof could very well require reversal or a new trial at the expense of the taxpayers which could be easily avoided by merely adhering to the rules.
The other points raised by appellant have been carefully considered and we find them to be without merit. Accordingly the judgment is
Affirmed.
MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)…l, Second District of Florida, to review the decision of that court which affirmed the judgment of the Hills-borough County Criminal Court of Record convicting the petitioner of the crime of arson following jury trial. Richardson v. State, Fla.App., 233 So. 2d 868. The State challenges this Court’s jurisdiction 'to review the decision below, claiming that no conflict has been shown between the decision and a decision of another district court or of this court. Petitioner contends there exists a conflict bet…
-
Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)…ngs which permitted these several witnesses to testify over the defendant’s objections. Once a defendant chooses to activate Rule 1.220(e) it becomes mandatory for the prosecuting attorney to comply with the rule. Richardson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 868; Cacciatore v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 137. In the case at bar the prosecuting attorney was clearly guilty of noncompliance with the rule, albeit through oversight rather than bad faith. We are faced with the question of whether the prosecut…
-
Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…itnesses from testifying, we feel that this should be done only under the most compelling circumstances and where the omission can not be otherwise remedied. See also Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 744; Richardson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 868, and Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 771. We are of the opinion, in line with the comments here made and the provisions of Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 426, that the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for a new t…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence