Moorer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moorer v. State

133 So. 3d 1242, 2014 WL 1031434, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3918

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 2014

DocketNo. 4D12-4286

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 So. 3d 1242 (Moorer 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

Moorer v. State, 133 So. 3d 1242, 2014 WL 1031434, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3918 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

GROSS, J.

At about 7 a.m. one January morning, a detective and 17 members of the Sunrise Police Department SWAT team broke into appellant’s apartment to execute a search warrant. They found appellant asleep on the living room couch. Appellant punched and kicked multiple officers, leading to the charge in this case for resisting an officer with violence. A search of the residence uncovered young children and two women, but no drugs or guns.

At appellant’s trial, a police sergeant testified that when asked for his name, appellant falsely provided that of his brother. Defense counsel immediately objected that such information had not been provided in discovery. The trial court overruled the objection without inquiring further. The sergeant conceded that his police report said nothing about the false name.

Appellant’s objection was sufficient to raise the issue of a discovery violation. The trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson¹ hearing is reversible error unless a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced. See Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 505-06 [1243]*1243(Fla.2009); State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020-21 (Fla.1995). We cannot say that the defense was not so prejudiced.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

GROSS, J.

At about 7 a.m. one January morning, a detective and 17 members of the Sunrise Police Department SWAT team broke into appellant’s apartment to execute a search warrant. They found appellant asleep on the living room couch. Appellant punched and kicked multiple officers, leading to the charge in this case for resisting an officer with violence. A search of the residence uncovered young children and two women, but no drugs or guns.

At appellant’s trial, a police sergeant testified that when asked for his name, appellant falsely provided that of his brother. Defense counsel immediately objected that such information had not been provided in discovery. The trial court overruled the objection without inquiring further. The sergeant conceded that his police report said nothing about the false name.

Appellant’s objection was sufficient to raise the issue of a discovery violation. The trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson¹ hearing is reversible error unless a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced. See Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 505-06 [1243]*1243(Fla.2009); State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020-21 (Fla.1995). We cannot say that the defense was not so prejudiced.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 1242, 2014 WL 1031434, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moorer-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack