Renczkowski v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Renczkowski v. State

693 So. 2d 637, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3996, 1997 WL 186460

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 18, 1997

DocketNo. 96-02573

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 637 (Renczkowski 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

Renczkowski v. State, 693 So. 2d 637, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3996, 1997 WL 186460 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

David Renczkowski appeals from his judgment and sentence for lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a Richardson¹ hearing on the state’s discovery violation. Renczkowski raises six additional points on appeal; however, because the first issue requires reversal, we decline to discuss the remaining issues.

After the state had. presented most of its ease, it informed defense counsel that it would call a new witness in rebuttal if Renc-zkowski testified. This new development caused the defense to reconsider having Renczkowski testify. The state’s failure to timely reveal the witness resulted in prejudice to Renczkowski because of defense counsel’s assertion in his opening remarks to the jury that Renczkowski would testify. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson hearing was not harmless error. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1995) (state must prove that there is no reasonable possibility that defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been different had the violation not occurred; if appellate court can determine from record that defense was procedurally prejudiced by discovery violation, error must be considered harmful). Thus, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

David Renczkowski appeals from his judgment and sentence for lewd and lascivious acts in the presence of a child. He argues that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a Richardson¹ hearing on the state’s discovery violation. Renczkowski raises six additional points on appeal; however, because the first issue requires reversal, we decline to discuss the remaining issues.

After the state had. presented most of its ease, it informed defense counsel that it would call a new witness in rebuttal if Renc-zkowski testified. This new development caused the defense to reconsider having Renczkowski testify. The state’s failure to timely reveal the witness resulted in prejudice to Renczkowski because of defense counsel’s assertion in his opening remarks to the jury that Renczkowski would testify. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson hearing was not harmless error. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1995) (state must prove that there is no reasonable possibility that defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been different had the violation not occurred; if appellate court can determine from record that defense was procedurally prejudiced by discovery violation, error must be considered harmful). Thus, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 637, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 3996, 1997 WL 186460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renczkowski-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack