NICK STEWART, 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 trial court did not err in refusing to exclude the victim's testimony because the defendant failed to show prejudice from the witness's failure to appear for a deposition.
The appellant was convicted of robbery. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to exclude the victim's testimony because the victi…
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 Prejudice From Discovery Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was tried before the court and convicted of the offense of robbery. On appeal he argued the trial court committed error by refusing to exclude the testimony of the victim, the principal witness for the state. The ground for seeking to exclude such testimony was that the witness had failed to appear prior to trial for a deposition which had been sought by the defendant, for which the witness had been subpoenaed.
When the case was called for trial the defendant’s attorney informed the court of this situation, and announced he was ready to proceed only if the testimony of such witness would be excluded. Thereupon the court recessed the cause to afford defendant’s attorney time to interview the witness. At the conclusion of the recess period, and in response to a question from the court the defendant’s attorney announced he was ready to proceed.
Appellant’s brief makes reference to the case of Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 744, wherein it was held that refusal of the trial court to exclude the testimony of a non-listed witness is error only if it is shown to have prejudiced the defendant in preparation for trial. Appellant contends that the refusal of the court to exclude the testimony of the victim in this case was prejudicial without showing in what respect it so operated. We agree with the position of the state that the record fails to disclose such prejudice. Compare Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 771. No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)