ROBIN HOOD BELL, 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.
Robin Hood Bell was convicted of obtaining amphetamines by fraud. He appealed the trial court's refusal to allow a defense witness, Dr. Guest, to testify in support of his alibi because the witness was not listed in the notice of intent to claim alibi. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony without considering whether good cause existed to waive the requirement.
The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to permit Dr. Guest to testify without first determining whether good cause existed to waive the notice requirement. The appellate court held that good cause was shown because the alibi was vital to the defense, the testimony would have been material, the State had itself listed Dr. Guest as a witness and therefore could not claim surprise, and the omission could have been remedied.
[1] A trial court may exclude the testimony of an alibi witness not disclosed in compliance with discovery rules, absent a showing of good cause.
[2] Good cause for admitting an undisclosed alibi witness may be shown when the opposing party has already listed the witness, thereby negating surprise.
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“It should not be artificially or technically administered, but should be considered in the light of the objective of the whole trial procedure, which is basically to obtain a just decision based upon all of the facts.”
Establishes the principle that discovery rules should be applied with discretion in service of obtaining a just result, not technically or rigidly.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBell was charged with obtaining amphetamines by fraud. He provided notice of intent to claim an alibi, stating he was at Forest Hills Medical Center i…
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 Notice Of Alibi cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The appellant appeals his conviction of obtaining amphetamines by fraud in violation of F.S. 404.02 F.S.A. Pursuant to demand for notice of alibi, the appellant served notice of his intent to claim an alibi. In the notice he stated that rather than being where the alleged offense occurred, he was at Forest Hills Medical Center in Tampa at the time. He listed the names of two relatives he might call as witnesses to support the alibi.
When the witnesses were sworn at the beginning of the trial, defense counsel stated that he might also call Dr. Guest as a witness, but nothing further was said on the subject at that time. Dr. Guest was a resident physician at Forest Hills Medical Center. The purpose of calling Dr. Guest would be to support the appellant’s alibi.
Later in the trial, the prosecutor objected to Dr. Guest being called as a witness for the defense because he was not listed as a witness on the notice of intent to claim alibi. Dr. Guest had been listed on the State’s witness list.
Upon inquiry by the court, defense counsel stated that the appellant had told him just prior to trial that Dr. Guest might be able to support his claim of alibi. Counsel further stated that he had called Dr. Guest’s office and found that the doctor’s records indicated the appellant had been at his office on the same morning the offense was alleged to have been committed. The court refused to permit Dr. Guest to be called as a witness because of the failure to include his name on the notice of intent to claim alibi.
Rule 3.200, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., provides that upon demand by the State, one intending to claim an alibi must supply specific information with respect thereto and give the names and addresses of the witnesses being called to attempt to prove the alibi. If the notice is given, the court may exclude the testimony of any witness offered by the defendant for the purpose of proving the alibi if the name and address of such witness is not stated in the notice. The rule permits the waiving of its requirements for good cause shown.
The rationale of several cases involving a waiver of the requirement to furnish the names of witnesses under Rule 3.220, CrPR (formerly Rule 1.220), 33 F.S.A. appears analogous. Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 771; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 106; Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1972, 241 So. 2d 744; Dancy v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So. 2d 208. In Williams, the court said:
“It is our view that the administration of the discovery rule in question requires a careful and discerning employment of the court’s discretion. It should not be artificially or technically administered, but should be considered in the light of the objective of the whole trial procedure, which is basically to obtain a just decision based upon all of the facts. Hence, we feel, as was suggested in Sheridan v. State, Fla.App.1971, 258 So. 2d 43, that upon the failure of a party to make discovery [sic] the court should make a careful inquiry as to why the disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice to the other party and the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by some intermediate procedure. While the rule, 1.220(g), supra, describes the possibility' that the court may prohibit witnesses from testifying, we feel that this should be done only under the most compelling circumstances and where the omission can not be otherwise remedied.
The appellant’s claim of alibi was vital to his defense. According to counsel’s proffer, the testimony of Dr. Guest would have been material. Since the State had itself included Dr. Guest on its list of witnesses, it was in no position to claim great surprise. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that good cause was shown and that the trial court exceeded the bounds of its discretion in refusing to permit Dr. Guest to be called as a witness for the defense. The judgment is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
McNULTY, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C. A. W. v. State, 295 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…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 with the witness and with his anticipated testimony, thus, where there can be no surprise, and where the necessi…
-
Barnes v. State, 294 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ure to comply with the rule, excluded any testimony of witnesses other than the defendant regarding alibi. Barnes’ sole defense was an alibi, and he therefore did not call the witnesses listed on his witness list. In Bell v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 287 So. 2d 717, which also involved RCrP 3.200, this court applied the rationale of cases involving a different discovery rule — Rule 3.220. In both rules the trial court has the discretion to exclude witnesses not included on the witness lists, and Rule 3.200 spe…
-
King v. State, 355 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…d testimony, thus where there can be no surprise, and where the necessity for calling the witness occurs as a result of unforeseen circumstances which developed during the trial (or immediately preceding the trial, Bell v. State, [(Fla. 2d DCA 1974) 287 So. 2d 717,] supra) and where it is apparent that no prejudice can result as a result of the failure to list the witness, then, under such circumstances, the rule should not be blindly followed. The purpose of the rules, indeed the purpose of the law, is to ac…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Dancy v. State, 259 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Sheridan v. State, 258 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Bell v. State, 281 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)