Howard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howard v. State

519 So. 2d 687, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 317, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 322, 1988 WL 6050

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 1988

DocketNo. 86-814

StatusPublished

This text of 519 So. 2d 687 (Howard 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

Howard v. State, 519 So. 2d 687, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 317, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 322, 1988 WL 6050 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where the State fails to disclose to the defendant’s counsel, in response to a request for discovery, the existence of an oral inculpatory statement made at the time of arrest, which the state then uses at trial, the court is obligated to conduct an inquiry, at trial, pursuant to the mandates of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971). From such inquiry it should be determined whether the discovery violation prevented the defendant from adequately preparing for trial. Because that determination cannot be made post-trial, Smith v. State, 500 So.2d 125 (Fla.1986), it follows that it cannot be made by a reviewing court.

[688]*688The argument of counsel on the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, made at a sidebar conference, did not satisfy the requirement of Richardson. Compare Borges v. State, 459 So.2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

Where the State fails to disclose to the defendant’s counsel, in response to a request for discovery, the existence of an oral inculpatory statement made at the time of arrest, which the state then uses at trial, the court is obligated to conduct an inquiry, at trial, pursuant to the mandates of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971). From such inquiry it should be determined whether the discovery violation prevented the defendant from adequately preparing for trial. Because that determination cannot be made post-trial, Smith v. State, 500 So.2d 125 (Fla.1986), it follows that it cannot be made by a reviewing court.

[688]*688The argument of counsel on the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, made at a sidebar conference, did not satisfy the requirement of Richardson. Compare Borges v. State, 459 So.2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 687, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 317, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 322, 1988 WL 6050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack