Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. State

411 So. 2d 335, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19559

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 1982

DocketNo. 81-959

StatusPublished

This text of 411 So. 2d 335 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 411 So. 2d 335, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19559 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

Moore’s counsel timely objected to and apprised the trial court of the state’s use of an expert witness whose name did not appear on the state’s witness list. Without conducting any inquiry as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), the trial court overruled the objection and permitted the witness to testify. Because it failed to inquire whether the discovery violation was trivial or substantial, inadvertent or willful, and the effect, if any, it had upon Moore’s ability to prepare for trial, the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the witness to testify. We must therefore reverse the judgment and sentence below and remand for a new trial. Richardson, 246 So.2d at 777; Miller v. State, 403 So.2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); McDonnough v. State, 402 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Judge.

Moore’s counsel timely objected to and apprised the trial court of the state’s use of an expert witness whose name did not appear on the state’s witness list. Without conducting any inquiry as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), the trial court overruled the objection and permitted the witness to testify. Because it failed to inquire whether the discovery violation was trivial or substantial, inadvertent or willful, and the effect, if any, it had upon Moore’s ability to prepare for trial, the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the witness to testify. We must therefore reverse the judgment and sentence below and remand for a new trial. Richardson, 246 So.2d at 777; Miller v. State, 403 So.2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); McDonnough v. State, 402 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

411 So. 2d 335, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack