EDWARD DIXON, 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.
Edward Dixon appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, challenging the trial judge's denial of discovery motions for witness statements and juror investigative reports. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the judge's discovery rulings complied with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and constitutional requirements for fair trial.
The trial judge did not commit reversible error. The judge's discovery rulings fully complied with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and constitutional requirements established in Brady v. Maryland and relevant case law. The defendant received adequate discovery, including a witness list and the appointment of an investigator, allowing him to investigate both the witnesses and the jurors.
[1] A trial court complies with discovery rules by providing the defendant with a list of witnesses to be used at trial.
[2] A trial court is not required to produce statements made by prospective witnesses to law enforcement officers.
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“An examination of the record shows that the trial judge fully complied with the rules of discovery in criminal proceedings and the case law as enunciated by the appellate courts.”
Establishes that the trial judge's discovery rulings were legally proper and compliant with established procedural rules.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDixon was charged with first-degree murder and tried before a jury. He was found guilty of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonm…
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 Constitutional Right To A Fair Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Edward Dixon, was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty of murder in the second degree and sentenced to the State penitentiary for the remainder of his natural life.
Prior to the trial of this cause, defendant’s attorney filed various motions pursuant to the rules of discovery, including the following: Motion for a witness list; motion for a complete and detailed report of any and all prospective jurors; motion for exchange of witness list; motion suggesting insanity; motion to appoint investigator; motion for production of State’s evidence and motion for production of statements or confessions and grand jury testimony.
Following a hearing the trial judge granted his motion suggesting insanity and appointed a psychiatrist to examine the appellant. He also granted the motion to appoint an investigator and the same was appointed. He granted the motion for written or recorded statements or confessions, defendant’s recorded testimony before the grand jury and any exculpatory statements made by the defendant which were in the possession of the State. He denied that part of the motion asking for statements of any prospective witnesses; but he granted defendant’s motion for exchange of witness list and denied defendant’s motion for a copy of a complete and detailed report of any and all prospective jurors. He required the State to furnish to the defendant a list of the witnesses to be used at the trial of this cause.
The defendant now complains that it was error for the trial judge to deny defendant’s motion to produce statements made by. prospective witnesses to officers of the City of Tampa Police Department and to deny defendant’s motion for a copy of an investigative report relating to prospective jurors. An examination of the record *206shows that the trial judge fully complied with the rules of discovery in criminal proceedings and the case law as enunciated by the appellate courts. A list of the witnesses was provided to the defendant. An investigator was appointed and the defendant could have easily, and quite possibly may have, investigated the prospective juror list. A list of the witnesses was furnished and defendant’s counsel with the help of his investigator could certainly have deposed these witnesses.
We can find nothing in the record or the briefs to support a denial of defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The judge’s actions comport with the law enunciated in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and the case law enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, 1963, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, and by this court in State v. Williams, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 253; State v. Drayton, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 469; State v. Gillespie, Fla.App.1969, 227 So.2d 550, and then in State v. Crawford, Fla.1972, 257 So.2d 898.
No error having been made to appear the judgment is therefore affirmed.
MANN and McNULTY, TT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caldwell v. State, 277 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See Dixon v. State, 261 So. 2d 205 (Fla.App.1972). CARROLL, DONALD K, A. C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- State v. Gillespie, 227 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- State v. Crawford, 257 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1972)
- State v. Drayton, 226 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Judson Luther Hobby v. Waddell, 227 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)