McLaren v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McLaren v. State

634 So. 2d 325, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3341, 1994 WL 120051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1994

DocketNo. 92-3794

StatusPublished

This text of 634 So. 2d 325 (McLaren 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

McLaren v. State, 634 So. 2d 325, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3341, 1994 WL 120051 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis with intent to sell. At trial he objected to the admission of certain [326]*326evidence because it was not disclosed in discovery. We reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court failed to make an adequate inquiry as to whether the state’s violation was inadvertent or willful, whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and whether the violation affected the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial. See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971); Brown v. State, 579 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); In re F.R., 539 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lee v. State, 538 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also D.R. v. State, 588 So.2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

BOOTH, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis with intent to sell. At trial he objected to the admission of certain [326]*326evidence because it was not disclosed in discovery. We reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court failed to make an adequate inquiry as to whether the state’s violation was inadvertent or willful, whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and whether the violation affected the defendant’s ability to prepare for trial. See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971); Brown v. State, 579 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); In re F.R., 539 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lee v. State, 538 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also D.R. v. State, 588 So.2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

BOOTH, ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

634 So. 2d 325, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3341, 1994 WL 120051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaren-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack