a.L.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

a.L.H. v. State

773 So. 2d 1192, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15447, 2000 WL 1745055

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-3846

StatusPublished

This text of 773 So. 2d 1192 (a.L.H. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

a.L.H. v. State, 773 So. 2d 1192, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15447, 2000 WL 1745055 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court failed to conduct an adequate hearing under Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), concerning appellant’s claim that he was not notified of or provided with a copy of the statement that the arresting officer took from Nora Barefoot, an eyewitness to the incident giving rise to criminal charges. Even assuming that the prosecutor was unaware of such a statement, “[i]t is well-settled that the state is charged with constructive knowledge and possession of evidence withheld by state agents, including law enforcement officers.” Tarrant v. State, 668 So.2d 223, 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citations omitted). On this record, we cannot conclude that the violation, if any, was harmless. See Mobley v. State, 705 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Tarmnt, 668 So.2d at 225-26. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. See State v. Evans, 770 So.2d 1174 (Fla.2000).

KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The trial court failed to conduct an adequate hearing under Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), concerning appellant’s claim that he was not notified of or provided with a copy of the statement that the arresting officer took from Nora Barefoot, an eyewitness to the incident giving rise to criminal charges. Even assuming that the prosecutor was unaware of such a statement, “[i]t is well-settled that the state is charged with constructive knowledge and possession of evidence withheld by state agents, including law enforcement officers.” Tarrant v. State, 668 So.2d 223, 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citations omitted). On this record, we cannot conclude that the violation, if any, was harmless. See Mobley v. State, 705 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Tarmnt, 668 So.2d at 225-26. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. See State v. Evans, 770 So.2d 1174 (Fla.2000).

KLEIN, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

773 So. 2d 1192, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15447, 2000 WL 1745055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alh-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack