FRANK C. WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the admission of a witness not on the state's list was not prejudicial error, as the defense had access to the state's file and the identity of the deceased was not in dispute.
The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. On appeal, he argued that the state improperly used a witness whose name was not provided to the …
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 Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, who is the appellant here, was duly informed against, tried before the court without jury, and found guilty of murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence.
There is no substantial issue as to the guilt of the appellant. Upon this appeal the point presented urges that the appellant should be granted a new trial because the state used a witness whose name was not furnished to the defendant pursuant to CrPR 1.220, 33 F.S.A. The witness, Lowell Draper, was allowed to testify over the objection of the defendant. Lowell Draper identified a photograph of the victim as a photograph of his former wife Doris Draper.
There was evidence before the trial court that the attorney for the defendant was allowed to examine and copy everything in the state prosecutor’s file on the case. But, even if by mistake the witness’ name was not included, there was no prejudicial error. There was no controversy as to the identity of the deceased. See Buttler v. State, 238 So.2d 313 (Fla.App. 1970), where this court held:
Rule 1.220(e) is not an end in itself but has the purpose of furnishing a defendand with information that will enable him to better prepare his defense; it eliminates surprise and affords a defendant time to interview witnesses. * * * An error in procedure under Rule 1.220(e) does not entitle a defendant to a reversal for new trial where it can be affirmatively determined that no prejudice resulted.” at 314.
As to the trial court’s discretion in the circumstances here presented see Rhome v. State, 222 So.2d 431 (Fla.App.1969).
Having determined that no error has been made to appear and that the proof of the guilt of the appellant was fully established, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rhome v. State, 222 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Buttler v. State, 238 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)