F.L. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

F.L. v. State

528 So. 2d 976, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3186, 1988 WL 74808

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 1988

DocketNo. 87-2686

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 528 So. 2d 976 (F.L. 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

F.L. v. State, 528 So. 2d 976, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3186, 1988 WL 74808 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the final order adjudicating him to be a delinquent juvenile. The sole issue he raises on this appeal is the failure of the trial judge to conduct a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), before excluding the testimony of appellant’s mother for not having been listed as a witness in pretrial discovery. It is undisputed that there was a failure to conduct such a hearing. We have searched the record to determine whether the trial judge conducted the equivalent of such a hearing but find no evidence that such was the case. We are prohibited from considering whether the failure to conduct the Richardson hearing was harmless error. We, therefore, must reverse and remand for a new trial.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the final order adjudicating him to be a delinquent juvenile. The sole issue he raises on this appeal is the failure of the trial judge to conduct a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), before excluding the testimony of appellant’s mother for not having been listed as a witness in pretrial discovery. It is undisputed that there was a failure to conduct such a hearing. We have searched the record to determine whether the trial judge conducted the equivalent of such a hearing but find no evidence that such was the case. We are prohibited from considering whether the failure to conduct the Richardson hearing was harmless error. We, therefore, must reverse and remand for a new trial.

CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 So. 2d 976, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1743, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3186, 1988 WL 74808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fl-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack