In re N.P.C.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re N.P.C.

610 So. 2d 744, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 191, 1993 WL 8915

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0948

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 610 So. 2d 744 (In re N.P.C.) 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

In re N.P.C., 610 So. 2d 744, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 191, 1993 WL 8915 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s conviction on the authority of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971) and remand for a new trial. The trial court allowed the State, over objection, to call an eye witness not listed on pretrial discovery. The State had mistakenly listed Scott Chapman on the witness list but omitted Burgess Chapman, the actual witness.

A very limited inquiry was conducted with respect to the discovery violation. The court allowed Burgess Chapman to testify, concluding that there was no apparent prejudice because the defendant had the police reports, had conducted no formal discovery, and had only talked to Scott Chapman in the hall shortly before trial. Nothing indicates, however, that the defense was on notice that Burgess Chapman would be a witness. The trial court, rather than simply overruling the defense objection and proceeding, should have offered Appellant the opportunity for a recess in order to question the witness and, if necessary, to seek a continuance. The alternative is to exclude the witness. There is no need to address the other issues on appeal which are now moot.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur. GUNTHER, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s conviction on the authority of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971) and remand for a new trial. The trial court allowed the State, over objection, to call an eye witness not listed on pretrial discovery. The State had mistakenly listed Scott Chapman on the witness list but omitted Burgess Chapman, the actual witness.

A very limited inquiry was conducted with respect to the discovery violation. The court allowed Burgess Chapman to testify, concluding that there was no apparent prejudice because the defendant had the police reports, had conducted no formal discovery, and had only talked to Scott Chapman in the hall shortly before trial. Nothing indicates, however, that the defense was on notice that Burgess Chapman would be a witness. The trial court, rather than simply overruling the defense objection and proceeding, should have offered Appellant the opportunity for a recess in order to question the witness and, if necessary, to seek a continuance. The alternative is to exclude the witness. There is no need to address the other issues on appeal which are now moot.

STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur. GUNTHER, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 744, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 191, 1993 WL 8915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-npc-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack