SHIELDS
v.
STATE
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.
Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after being indicted for first-degree murder. He appealed, challenging the trial court's admission of testimony from a witness whose name did not appear on a pre-trial witness list provided by the State, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in allowing the testimony.
The trial judge did not err in permitting Dr. Stanfield to testify. Although the trial judge properly exercised discretion in ordering the State to provide a complete witness list, nothing in the statutes required such an order, and the trial judge was in the best position to determine whether permitting the witness to testify violated his order. Appellant's failure to request a continuance or demonstrate prejudice forecloses relief.
“Upon motion of defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to furnish the names of such witnesses.”
Establishes that Florida law permits but does not require the trial judge to order the State to provide a witness list upon defendant's request.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was indicted for first-degree murder and convicted of second-degree murder. Upon appellant's motion, the trial judge ordered the State to fu…
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 Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
The appellant was indicted on a charge of first degree murder and was convicted of second degree murder. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction.
The appellant here contends, among others, that the trial judge erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of a State’s witness whose name had not appeared on a list of witnesses furnished to the appellant by the State in advance of the trial. The list had been furnished in compliance with an order of the-trial judge, entered upon the motion of appellant, to furnish to the appellant “a full and complete list of witnesses to be used by the State” and to keep such list up to date.
The record shows that, at the trial of the cause, the State called as a witness one Dr. Wardell E. Stanfield, to which testimony counsel for the appellant objected on the ground that Dr. Stanfield's name was not on the witness list. Counsel for the appellant admitted that he had received notice at 10:00 o’clock that morning that the State intended to call this witness; he did not ask for a continuance in order to interrogate the witness; nor did he make it appear that he had not had an opportunity to examine the witness subsequent to his actual notice that the witness would be called, had he desired to do so; in fact, he made no showing whatsoever that he would be prejudiced in any way by allowing this witness to testify. He contended only that the witness should not be permitted to testify since his name was not on the list and since he had had “no substantial notice of this witness being called.” The trial judge overruled his objection and permitted the witness to testify, and the appellant here contends that this was error. Our statute, Section 906.29, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that “It shall not be necessary to indorse on any indictment or information the names of the witnesses on whose evidence the same is based, but upon motion of defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to furnish the names of such witnesses.” While it would appear that, upon the motion of the accused, a trial judge should require the State to supply a list of the witnesses upon whose evidence an indictment or information is based, there is nothing in our statutes which requires a trial judge to order the State to furnish “a full and complete list of witnesses to be used by the State, as was done in the instant case. The trial judge exercised his judicial discretion in so ordering. At the trial, he determined that permitting Dr. Stanfield to testify would not be in violation of his order, and we know of no one in a better position than he to make this determination.
The other questions argued by the counsel for appellant have been considered, and no error has been found.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979)…ntinuance to allow him to interview or depose the witness in order to better prepare to cross-examine him. Defense counsel did not request permission to reopen his case. These facts are significant to the issue of actual prejudice. Shields v. State, 64 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1953). But see Johnson v. State, 312 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The determination of whether the trial court has made an adequate inquiry depends on the circumstances of each case. The court is not required to enter specific findings on th…
-
State v. Shouse, 177 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…ich authorizes disclosure of the names of witnesses whom the state intends to use at the trial, the Supreme Court has held that an order requiring such a disclosure may be entered in the discretion of the trial judge. See Shields v. State, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 271. We therefore decline to quash that part of the order which directs the state to disclose to the-defendants the names of persons it intends to use as witnesses at the trial. Section 925.04, Fla.Stats., F.S.A., provides that when a crime has been co…
-
Newman v. State, 196 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1967)…ation and analysis. Under these circumstances we do not believe the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the testimony of the two F.B.I. witnesses who had not been previously listed among the state’s witnesses. See Shields v. State (Fla.) 64 So. 2d 271 and State v. Shouse (Fla.App.) 177 So. 2d 724. Point 4. On whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant under the indictment it is noted it is admitted in his brief he was present when the victim was assaulted by others. He disput…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence