MANUEL RODRIGUEZ AND MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,

v.

LAURA AMBLER BROWN ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Lucas v. State, 376 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979)
  …harged, and to any defense with respect thereto. Rebuttal witnesses, the necessity for whom the state can reasonably anticipate, are included within the operation of the rule. Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); Frazier v. State, 336 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Breedlove v. State, 295 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Rowan v. State, 252 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The rule further provides: (j) Sanctions. (1) If, at any time during the course of the proceedings, it is brought to th…
• Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979)
  …was erroneous. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 recognizes no rebuttal witness exception, and the State concedes the point. See Smith v. State, 319 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1975); Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Frazier v. State, 336 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Hughley’s status as a codefendant also did not excuse the State from listing him as a possible witness. Carnivale v. State, 271 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). This error by the trial court was then compounded [*389] because the…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
  …9 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1975); Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). The trial court failed to make such an inquiry. Contrary to the state’s assertion, rebuttal witnesses are not exempt from the operation of the discovery rules. Frazier v. State, 336 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Since it is the trial court’s duty to determine whether the state’s noncompliance prejudiced the defendant and it failed to do so, the cause must be reversed. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for…