GUIDO HILARIO PICOT, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a conviction where the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the defendant to call witnesses due to failure to comply with a pretrial disclosure rule, despite the prosecutor acknowledging no prejudice and the defendant's noncompliance being merely a clerical oversight.
The trial court abused its discretion in categorically refusing to allow defense witnesses to testify. The court erred by summarily determining that the State would necessarily be prejudiced without considering the actual circumstances: clerical oversight, the prosecutor's prior knowledge, and the prosecutor's acknowledgment of no prejudice.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a defendant the right to call witnesses based solely on the defendant's failure to provide a witness list, without consider…
[2] A trial court should grant a recess to allow the prosecution to interview defense witnesses when the defendant's failure to disclose was a clerical oversight and the pros…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the defendant's failure to furnish a witness list was a clerical oversight, (2) that the prosecutor knew at least by the day of the trial who the defendant's prospective witnesses were, and (3) that the prosecutor acknowledged there was probably no prejudice to the State”
Establishes the actual facts regarding lack of prejudice and mere technical noncompliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant invoked a pretrial disclosure rule but failed to provide a list of his witnesses. At trial, when defendant attempted to call witnesses, 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 Prejudice To The State cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition for writ of certiorari we are asked to review a decision of the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida, which in its appellate capacity affirmed petitioner’s conviction in the Court of Record 'in and for Broward County, Florida.
On appeal to the Circuit Court petitioner (as appellant therein) asserted that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying appellant’s right (as defendant) to call witnesses in his behalf. The record shows the following pertinent matters: Defendant had invoked the provisions of Rule 3.220(e) RCrP, 33 F.S.A., but after receiving a list of the State’s witnesses had failed to disclose his own witnesses. At trial, when defendant attempted to call one or more witnesses, the prosecutor objected. The ensuing colloquy between court and counsel out of the jury’s presence developed (1) that the defendant’s failure to furnish a witness list was a clerical oversight, (2) that the prosecutor knew at least by the day of the trial who the defendant’s prospective witnesses were, and (3) that the prosecutor acknowledged there was probably no prejudice to the State. Despite defense counsel’s request that the court recess long enough for the prosecutor to interview the witnesses and satisfy himself as to whether the State would be prejudiced by the witnesses being allowed to testify, the court declined to do so and summarily determined without more that the State necessarily would be prejudiced should any defense witnesses be allowed to testify.
The circuit court’s determination that the trial court had not abused its discretion is contrary to the principles enunciated in Williams v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 106; Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 744; Bradford v. State, Supreme Court, 278 So.2d 624, opinion filed May 30, 1973. We conclude that in affirming the conviction the circuit court deviated from the essential requirements of law. The decision of the circuit court is quashed and this cause remanded to that court with directions to reverse petitioner’s judgment and sentence and remand the cause to the appropriate trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…and allowing the prosecutor to interview the witnesses and satisfy himself as to whether the prosecution would be prejudiced by the witnesses being allowed to testify. See Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 771; Picot v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 280 So. 2d 693 and cases cited therein. The judgment and sentence is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for a new trial. . As suggested by the clerk of the circuit court.…
Authorities Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Bradford v. State, 278 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1973)
- Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)