JAMES DAVID HARDISON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Conviction reversed because trial court failed to inquire into prejudice from state's undisclosed rebuttal witness before overruling defendant's discovery objection.
A trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry into the circumstances of noncompliance with discovery rules before exercising discretion to determine whether the defendant was prejudiced.
[1] Rebuttal witnesses are subject to criminal discovery rules and cannot be exempted from disclosure requirements.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 court has the discretion to determine whether failure to comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220 would result in harm or prejudice to the defendant. However, the trial court may exercise its discretion only after it has made an adequate inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the noncompliance.”
Establishing the requirement for inquiry before exercising discretion on discovery violations
Hardison was convicted of possession of a barbiturate and narcotics paraphernalia. The state called a rebuttal witness it had failed to list in discov…
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 Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Hardison was found guilty by a jury of possession of a barbiturate and possession of narcotics paraphernalia. The state called a rebuttal witness whose name it had failed to list in response to appellant’s demand for discovery. Appellant made a timely objection. The court overruled the objection without making an inquiry into the circumstances. The witness then gave testimony which completely refuted a material aspect of appellant’s defense.
The trial court has the discretion to determine whether failure to comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220 would result in harm or prejudice to the defendant. However, the trial court may exercise its discretion only after it has made an adequate inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the noncompliance. Smith v. State, 319 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 a new trial.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucas v. State, 376 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979)…ave information which may be relevant to the offense charged, 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 dur…
-
Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979)…covered by the rule. That ruling by the trial court 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 th…
-
Flynn v. State, 351 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…he court must make adequate inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the non-compliance to determine the lack of prejudice. Here the court failed to make inquiry. We reverse on that point as well and remand for retrial. See also Hardison v. State, 341 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) and Frazier v. State, 336 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Ramirez v. State, 241 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Lavigne v. State, 349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The Appellants next complain of the court’s refusal to direct a…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Ruvel Smith v. State, 319 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1975)
- Rodriguez v. Brown, 336 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Frazier v. State, 336 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)