TIMOTHY STREETER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Timothy Streeter appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding two defense witnesses based on discovery violations. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that excluding witnesses was an excessive sanction when the prosecution had notice of their existence and could have been granted time to interview them.
The trial court abused its discretion in excluding the defense witnesses. The court should have granted a recess allowing the prosecutor to interview the witnesses rather than imposing the severe sanction of prohibiting their testimony, particularly given the ambiguity about whether discovery rules applied to the indictment and the prosecution's prior knowledge of the witnesses.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by prohibiting the defense from calling witnesses solely on discovery grounds without first considering less severe sanctions, such as…
[2] The dismissal of an information does not necessarily terminate reciprocal discovery rules previously invoked if the case number and pleadings are maintained for a subsequ…
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“the trial judge abused his discretion in invoking the severe sanction of prohibiting the defense from calling its two witnesses instead of granting a recess 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”
The court's holding that exclusion of witnesses was an excessive remedy when a less drastic alternative (granting a recess for witness interviews) was available
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStreeter was initially charged with second-degree murder on July 29, 1974, under an information with reciprocal discovery rules invoked. On November 7…
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 Second Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
[*17] PER CURIAM.
Defendant seeks review of his conviction and life sentence for second degree murder on the grounds that by the exclusion of certain defense witnesses, he was denied his constitutional right to prepare and present a defense.
Defendant, Timothy Streeter, was charged with second degree murder by information filed on July 29, 1974. On this information, reciprocal discovery was invoked pursuant to RCrP 3.220. On November 7, the grand jury handed down an indictment for first degree murder against the defendant based upon the same facts alleged in the information of July 29. On November 18, the defendant appeared for trial on the information at which time the prosecution requested a nolle prosequi. The information was dismissed in order that the same case number be retained,1 and the defendant at the same time was arraigned on the indictment.
Thereafter, the defense invoked unilateral discovery on the indictment. The cause proceeded to a jury trial and at the close of the prosecution’s case the defense sought to call two witnesses, one of whom would have testified that he had observed the crime and the defendant did not commit it. The prosecution objected on grounds that they had not been supplied with the names and addresses of these witnesses although the reciprocal rules of discovery had been invoked. After hearing argument of counsel, the trial judge excluded these defense witnesses. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of second degree murder and this appeal resulted. We reverse.
The prosecution argues that although the July 29 information was dismissed, the same case number was maintained and all pleadings retained in the file and, therefore, the reciprocal rules of discovery were still in effect with regards to the indictment. The defense contends to the contrary that upon the information being dismissed, the reciprocal discovery invoked under it also terminated and did not apply to the subsequent indictment.
After an examination of the record, it becomes apparent that there was a valid misunderstanding as to whether or not, upon the dismissal of the information for second degree murder, the reciprocal rules, of discovery invoked under it would still be in effect and applicable to the subsequently filed indictment for first degree murder. Further, defense counsel informed the court that the prosecution had been apprised of the existence of the defense witnesses prior to trial. We conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion in invoking the severe sanction of prohibiting the defense from calling its two witnesses instead of granting a recess 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)…ances. (2) Willful violation by counsel of an applicable discovery rule, or an order issued pursuant thereto, may subject counsel to appropriate sanctions by the court. . See, e. g., Bradford v. State, 278 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1973); Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).…
-
Wessling v. State, 877 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…n violation of the Sixth Amendment. Mattear v. State, 657 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Prejudice to the State may be averted by granting a recess to permit the other side to question or depose the undisclosed witness. See, e.g., Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In this case, the trial court found, and the record supports, that defense counsel exercised his personal judgment in not disclosing the doctor’s report to the State. The court correctly found thát the failure to disclose had be…
-
A.C. v. State, 566 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…nstead of granting a recess 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.’ S.G., 518 So. 2d at 966 (quoting Streeter v. State, 323 So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)). “In a non-jury proceeding, as here, the failure to utilize the expedient of a recess is even less understandable.” S.G., 518 So. 2d at 966. Accordingly, since the trial court did not make the required inquiry and did not de…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Guido Hilario Picot v. State, 280 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)