M.O.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.O.B. v. State

701 So. 2d 1224, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13343, 1997 WL 734938

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1708

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 701 So. 2d 1224 (M.O.B. 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

M.O.B. v. State, 701 So. 2d 1224, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13343, 1997 WL 734938 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At appellant’s trial in juvenile court, a prosecution witness testified that appellant made an inculpatory statement that defense counsel alleged had not been furnished in response to a demand for discovery. We reverse the conviction and disposition and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing because it was error, under Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), not to have conducted an inquiry to determine whether a discovery violation had occurred, if the violation was willful or inadvertent, whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and if the violation prejudiced the defendant. See Sears v. State, 656 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Lowery v. State, 610 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We have considered, and expressly reject, the State’s contentions that no statement was testified to by the witness and that the error is harmless. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1995).

MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

At appellant’s trial in juvenile court, a prosecution witness testified that appellant made an inculpatory statement that defense counsel alleged had not been furnished in response to a demand for discovery. We reverse the conviction and disposition and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing because it was error, under Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), not to have conducted an inquiry to determine whether a discovery violation had occurred, if the violation was willful or inadvertent, whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and if the violation prejudiced the defendant. See Sears v. State, 656 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Lowery v. State, 610 So.2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We have considered, and expressly reject, the State’s contentions that no statement was testified to by the witness and that the error is harmless. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1995).

MINER, ALLEN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 1224, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13343, 1997 WL 734938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mob-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack