Purvis v. State

713 So. 2d 1118, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9480, 1998 WL 427087
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 27, 1998·No. No. 97-2225·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences on several grounds. We find that one has merit, and we reverse and remand for a new trial. The trial court failed to conduct a full inquiry and to make the required findings when the state committed a discovery violation by calling a witness not disclosed on their witness list. See Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971); Hatcher v. State, 568 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So.2d 1328 (Fla.1991). We are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the discovery violation and the trial court’s failure to conduct a full inquiry did not prejudice the defense. We are, therefore, required to reverse. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020-1021 (Fla.1995).

MINER, WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

Purvis v. State, 713 So. 2d 1118, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9480, 1998 WL 427087 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

713 So. 2d 1118 (Purvis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hatcher v. State
568 So. 2d 472 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
State v. Schopp
653 So. 2d 1016 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Richardson v. State
246 So. 2d 771 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)