Moore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moore v. State

747 So. 2d 1043, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 37, 2000 WL 4836

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 2000

DocketNo. 99-0368

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 747 So. 2d 1043 (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, 747 So. 2d 1043, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 37, 2000 WL 4836 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions of possession of over 20 grams of cannabis, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At trial, a detective testified that he had test fired a gun seized from a car occupied by appellant. Defense counsel objected to the admission of the spent round into evidence, primarily on relevancy grounds, not as a discovery violation under Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). Defense counsel did not object to the detective testifying that he had test fired the gun, which was relevant to prove that the gun was capable of firing a projectile under section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes (1999). The bullet was not admitted into evidence. The state did not refer to the bullet during the remainder of the case. Under these circumstances, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s failure to determine whether a discovery violation existed or to conduct a Richardson hearing. Appellant knew from discovery that the handgun had been recovered and that it was loaded.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions of possession of over 20 grams of cannabis, possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At trial, a detective testified that he had test fired a gun seized from a car occupied by appellant. Defense counsel objected to the admission of the spent round into evidence, primarily on relevancy grounds, not as a discovery violation under Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). Defense counsel did not object to the detective testifying that he had test fired the gun, which was relevant to prove that the gun was capable of firing a projectile under section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes (1999). The bullet was not admitted into evidence. The state did not refer to the bullet during the remainder of the case. Under these circumstances, we find no prejudicial error in the trial court’s failure to determine whether a discovery violation existed or to conduct a Richardson hearing. Appellant knew from discovery that the handgun had been recovered and that it was loaded.

AFFIRMED.

STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 So. 2d 1043, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 37, 2000 WL 4836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack