STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,

v.

RALPH KIRLIS, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Patterson v. State, 419 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
  …dressed fact situations similar to that in the present case and have concluded that exclusion was too severe a remedy. See, e.g., Hotchkiss v. State, 367 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1972); Adams v. State, 366 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Bowers (Fla. 2d DCA Case No. 82-359, June 2, 1982) [7 F.L.W.D.C.A. 1203]; State v. Plachta, 415 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see generally Yetter, Florida Criminal Discovery…
• C. A. W. v. State, 295 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
  …ident to discovery is to prevent prejudicial surprise. (See Stewart v. State, Fla.App. (3rd) 1971, 247 So. 2d 771; Richardson v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 771; Williams v. State, Fla.App. (4th) 1972, 264 So. 2d 106, [*331] certiorari denied 268 So. 2d 162; Buttler v. State, Fla.App. (3rd) 1970, 238 So. 2d 313 and Bell v. State, Fla.App. (2d) 1974, 287 So. 2d 717.) Certainly the rule has a laudable purpose and should be complied with. However, when, as here, the opposing party is fully acquainted wit…
• Lewis v. State, 411 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
  …to have considered whether a sanction less severe than excluding all alibi witnesses could have been utilized. Witnesses should be excluded only under the most compelling circumstances. Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 268 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1972). A defendant should not be hampered in his defense by being subjected to punishment intended for trial counsel. Hotchkiss v. State, 367 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Wilson v. State, 220 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 225 So. 2…

Authorities Cited

• Kirlis v. State, 262 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)