In the Interest of J.B.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of J.B.

622 So. 2d 1175, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8902, 1993 WL 331404

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 1, 1993·No. No. 92-1535·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial. We agree with appellant that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry when the state called an important, but previously undisclosed witness at trial. See Brey v. State, 382 So.2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Instead of determining the circumstances of the discovery violation and requiring the state to demonstrate the lack of prejudice to the juvenile accused, the court imposed the burden on the accused to demonstrate prejudice. This does not satisfy the procedure contemplated by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and BIRKEN, ARTHUR M., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial. We agree with appellant that the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry when the state called an important, but previously undisclosed witness at trial. See Brey v. State, 382 So.2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Instead of determining the circumstances of the discovery violation and requiring the state to demonstrate the lack of prejudice to the juvenile accused, the court imposed the burden on the accused to demonstrate prejudice. This does not satisfy the procedure contemplated by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and BIRKEN, ARTHUR M., Associate Judge, concur.

In the Interest of J.B., 622 So. 2d 1175, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8902, 1993 WL 331404 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

622 So. 2d 1175 (In the Interest of J.B.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related