JERRY LEE FRAZIER, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (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.
Frazier was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny after a jury trial. The trial court erred by summarily overruling his objection to the State's rebuttal witness who was not listed in discovery, without conducting any inquiry into whether Frazier was prejudiced. The appellate court remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing on prejudice before deciding whether to affirm or reverse.
The trial court committed error by failing to make adequate inquiry into the circumstances before ruling on the objection and determining whether non-compliance with discovery rules resulted in prejudice to the defendant. However, rather than reversing immediately, the case is remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing on prejudice, after which it should either find no prejudice (allowing affirmance) or find prejudice (requiring vacation and new trial).
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by summarily overruling an objection to a rebuttal witness not listed in discovery without inquiring into the circumstances.
[2] Reversal of a conviction is not required for a violation of procedural rules unless the record discloses prejudice to the defendant resulting from the non-compliance.
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 intelligence“Violation of a rule of procedure does not require reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that non-compliance with the rule resulted in prejudice to the defendant.”
Establishes the legal standard that procedural violations require prejudice to warrant reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, the State called a rebuttal witness whose name it had failed to list in response to Frazier's discovery demand. Frazier timely objected …
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
MILLS, Judge.
A jury found Frazier guilty of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. During the trial, the State called a rebuttal witness whose name it had failed to list in response to Frazier’s discovery demand. Frazier timely objected. The trial court summarily overruled the objection without making inquiry into the circumstances. The issues before us are whether this was error, and, if so, whether this case must be reversed or should be remanded for inquiry into the circumstances for the purpose of determining if Frazier was prejudiced.
Violation of a rule of procedure does not require reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that non-compliance with the rule resulted in prejudice to the defendant.
The trial court has discretion to determine whether the non-compliance would result in prejudice. But, the court’s discretion can be exercised only after the court has made adequate inquiry into the circumstances, and the circumstances establishing non-prejudice to the defendant appear affirmatively in the record. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
This the trial court failed to do, thus, committed error. Although the trial court committed error, it is unnecessary that we vacate the judgment and sentence at this time. We temporarily remand this case to the trial court with directions that it hold a hearing for the purposes of inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the State’s failure to furnish the name of the rebuttal witness in response to Frazier’s discovery demand, and whether the non-compliance with this rule of procedure resulted in prejudice to Frazier. Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1971); State v. Lyles, 316 So. 2d 277 (Fla.1975); McDonnell v. State, 336 So. 2d 553 (Fla., Opinion filed March 17, 1976).
After the hearing, if the court determines that Frazier was not prejudiced, it is ordered to transmit to this Court the record of the hearing and a copy of its order finding no prejudice. At that time we will reconsider this appeal. If, however, the trial court determines that Frazier was prejudiced, it should vacate the judgment and sentence and grant a new trial to Frazier. Remanded to the trial court with directions.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
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…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Lyles, 316 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1975)
- McDONNELL v. State, 336 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1976)