CHARLES MOBLEY, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to exclude a witness and for a continuance, nor in refusing a jury instruction for trespass as a lesser included offense.
[1] A violation of a rule of reciprocal discovery does not require reversal of a conviction unless the non-compliance resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant.
[2] A trial judge has broad discretion in matters of requested continuances, and an appellate court will not reverse absent a clear showing of palpable abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion…
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 Reciprocal Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant below, appeals his adjudication of guilt and sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. After a trial on February 18, 1975, the jury found appellant guilty as charged of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. After a pre-sentence investigation, the trial court sentenced appellant to five years imprisonment, three years to be withheld, and the period of imprisonment to be followed by three years probation. Subsequently, appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied.
On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred as follows: first, in denying appellant’s motions to exclude a witness for appellee and for a continuance where appellee failed to include the name of the witness in its response to appellant’s demand for reciprocal discovery, and, sec ond, in denying appellant’s request to instruct the jury of the lesser included offense of trespass where he was charged with breaking and entering.
In regard to appellant’s first point on appeal, the violation of a rule of procedure (appellant invoked reciprocal discovery pursuant to Local Rule Four, Circuit Court of Dade County) does not call for a reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that non-compliance with the rule resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant. See Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 771; Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 744; Buttler v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So. 2d 313; and Rhome v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 431. Furthermore, a trial judge is vested with broad discretion in matters of requested continuances and, by virtue of his closeness and intimacy with the circumstances of the case, he will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of a palpable abuse of this discretion. Sikes v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 17; and Mills v. State, Fla.App.1973, 280 So. 2d 35.
In the instant appeal, the record shows that the trial court properly inquired into the surrounding circumstances of appellee’s failure to provide appellant with the name of a witness pursuant to his request for reciprocal discovery. Further, the record shows that appellant was given an opportunity during the course of the proceedings to speak with the witness and that he availed himself of the opportunity. Further still, the record shows that the name of the witness was listed in at least three places on appellant’s arrest report, and appellant’s counsel admitted that he had a copy of the report prior to appellant’s trial.
Based on the record, we hold in regard to appellant’s first point on appeal that, because neither prejudicial or harmful error nor an abuse of discretion has been demonstrated, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to exclude the name of a witness and for a continuance.
In regard to appellant’s second point on appeal, we are unaware of any authority holding that trespass is a necessarily included offense in the offense of breaking and entering. The word “necessarily” is underscored because Florida case law, following the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So. 2d 377, has recognized the distinction between those lesser offenses which may be included and those which are necessarily included. Only the latter require instructions in accordance with Rule 3.510, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 34 F.S.A., while the former are discretionary depending upon the evidence presented at trial. See DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So. 2d 655; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1971, 256 So. 2d 46; and Sadler v. State, Fla. App.1969, 222 So. 2d 797.
In the instant appeal, appellant requested the trial court to give a jury instruction for breaking and entering which included the lesser offense of trespass. This request was based upon the Florida Standard Jury Instructions §§ 205 and 206. However, in response to the trial court’s request for appellant to base his request upon one of the specific trespass statutes, he never cited the trial court to such a statute and in addition requested the deletion of various phrases from the standard jury instruction.
Based on the record before us, we hold that appellant has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in failing to give the jury instruction requested by him. See Rivers v. State, Fla.App.1975, 307 So. 2d 826.
We have considered the record, all points in the briefs, and arguments of counsel in the light of the controlling principles of law, and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore, for the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1981)…The defendant has failed to show that there was an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion and has further failed to show that any prejudice resulted by the failure to include Holtzinger’s name in an earlier written witness list. In Mobley v. State, 327 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1976), the court held that even though the state failed to provide the defendant with the name of a witness pursuant to a defense request for a typical discovery, the trial court did not abuse its dis…
-
Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1986)…oach voluntary and the rule inapplicable. Because we cannot disagree that Sigler was improperly listed as a defense witness, and that her testimony was given voluntarily, we approve of the trial court’s refusal to impose sanctions. Mobley v. State, 327 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 292 (Fla.1976). Appellant next argues that the trial court’s forcing him to wear leg shackles during the trial led to undue jury prejudice and violated his fundamental right to a fair trial by vitiating…
-
Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979)…1133, 1138 (Fla.1976). The question of whether the failure to comply with a discovery obligation has caused actual prejudice reposes in the broad discretion of the trial court, due to its closeness to the circumstances of the case. Mobley v. State, 327 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The decision of the trial court on whether the violation calls for the extreme remedy of exclusion of the testimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is an abuse of discretion. Id. To facilitate appellate review of the tr…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- DeLAINE v. State, 262 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1972)
- Rhome v. State, 222 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Buttler v. State, 238 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Sadler v. State, 222 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Hollis Mills v. State, 280 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Ballard v. State, 307 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Sikes v. State, 280 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)