MICHAEL EVANCO, 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.
In this post-remand opinion, the Florida District Court of Appeal addresses whether threats made to a key witness after trial prejudiced the defendant's right to discovery and cross-examination. The court found no pre-trial threats but determined that the witness's refusal to answer discovery questions about personal information prejudiced the defendant's trial preparation, warranting a new trial.
The court held that post-trial threats were irrelevant to the issues on appeal, but the pre-trial refusal to answer discovery questions about personal information did prejudice the defendant's right to effective trial preparation and proper cross-examination. Consequently, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
[1] Threats made subsequent to a trial are irrelevant to issues assigned for appellate decision.
[2] A defendant's right to effective trial preparation and proper cross-examination is prejudiced by a witness's refusal to disclose personal information that could be used t…
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“A. No threats were made upon Officer Hoover before trial by the Appellant nor by anyone acting in concert with him, or at his direction or request nor upon his behalf.”
Trial court's key finding establishing no pre-trial threats by the defendant, which was relevant to the discovery dispute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Hoover refused to answer certain questions during the defendant's discovery deposition, claiming threats had been made to him or his family. F…
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 Relinquishment Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Chief Judge.
On August 18,1977, our opinion was filed in the above appeal, 350 So. 2d 780. In the final paragraph thereof, we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court with directions that a hearing be held to determine whether or not a threat or threats had been made to Officer Hoover or his family upon which he grounded his refusal to answer certain questions upon appellant’s discovery deposition and also to determine whether or not appellant was prejudiced by the officer’s failure to answer the questions. Thereafter, such hearing was held and the trial judge has entered his order making the following findings of fact:
“A. No threats were made upon Officer Hoover before trial by the Appellant nor by anyone acting in concert with him, or at his direction or request nor upon his behalf.
B. There is evidence that Appellant had contact with Officer Hoover on two occasions since the trial. On the first Appellant is alleged to have told Officer Hoover, in substance, ‘If you want to stay alive, you’ll get out of town.’ On the second Appellant is alleged to have told Officer Hoover, ‘My people are out. We will kill you and your family.’ Upon the last of these contacts which occurred on the same day, Appellant allegedly spat upon Officer Hoover and called him a ‘S.O.B.’ The testimony of Officer Hoover with respect to these conversations is uncorroborated and denied by appellant.
C. Any threats made subsequent to the trial are irrelevant to the issues assigned to this Court for decision.
D. The verdict of the jury rested largely upon the substantive testimony of Officer Hoover. The trial may have resulted in the different verdict had the appellant been accorded the opportunity to attack or cast doubt upon the credibility of Officer Hoover by evidence which might have been developed upon inquiry into those matters which he refused to disclose.”
The trial judge further found:
“The Appellant’s right to effective trial preparation and proper cross examination were prejudiced by the refusal of Officer Hoover to disclose his residence address, his marital and parental status.”
We have considered the record made upon remand, the trial court’s above findings, and the brief of appellant filed pursuant to our order allowing supplemental briefs. Appellee did not file a supplemental brief. We find no error in the findings of the trial court and reverse for a new trial.
RAWLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…rivileged or limited by order of the court, includes any relevant matter or information that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Evanco v. State, 350 So. 2d 780, 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) rev’d. for new trial 352 So. 2d 147. The denial of the motion to compel discovery was based on the Public Records Act, as set forth in the Laws of Florida, Chapter 79-187. See §§ 119.011,119.07 and 119.072, Fla.Stat. (1979). These sections refer to certain sensitive public records th…
Authorities Cited
- Evanco v. State, 350 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)