Sharif v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sharif v. State

589 So. 2d 960, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10883, 1991 WL 224548

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 1, 1991

DocketNo. 90-01174

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 589 So. 2d 960 (Sharif 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

Sharif v. State, 589 So. 2d 960, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10883, 1991 WL 224548 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Judge.

The appellant challenges convictions for cocaine possession, resisting arrest without violence, opposing or obstructing an officer without violence, and simple battery. We have considered and reverse each of the convictions and direct the conduct of a new trial.

The state did not reveal a rebuttal witness who, over appellant’s objection, testified and contradicted an aspect of the appellant’s testimony. The identity of rebuttal witnesses is not excepted from the state’s discovery obligation prescribed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b). Ratcliff v. State, 561 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The trial court’s inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the state’s non-compliance with the discovery rules was inadequate. In that circumstance, Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), requires reversal of the conviction. Ratcliff. Moreover, even in the absence of a timely objection, a per se basis [961]*961for reversal arises from failure to fulfill the Richardson requirement. Lee v. State, 538 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

We are not persuaded by the state’s contention that the undisclosed rebuttal witness’s testimony was not prejudicial. Potts v. State, 403 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Had the appellant been able to anticipate such testimony, his preparation for trial might have proceeded differently.

Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand this matter for a new trial.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

FRANK, Judge.

The appellant challenges convictions for cocaine possession, resisting arrest without violence, opposing or obstructing an officer without violence, and simple battery. We have considered and reverse each of the convictions and direct the conduct of a new trial.

The state did not reveal a rebuttal witness who, over appellant’s objection, testified and contradicted an aspect of the appellant’s testimony. The identity of rebuttal witnesses is not excepted from the state’s discovery obligation prescribed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b). Ratcliff v. State, 561 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The trial court’s inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the state’s non-compliance with the discovery rules was inadequate. In that circumstance, Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), requires reversal of the conviction. Ratcliff. Moreover, even in the absence of a timely objection, a per se basis [961]*961for reversal arises from failure to fulfill the Richardson requirement. Lee v. State, 538 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

We are not persuaded by the state’s contention that the undisclosed rebuttal witness’s testimony was not prejudicial. Potts v. State, 403 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Had the appellant been able to anticipate such testimony, his preparation for trial might have proceeded differently.

Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand this matter for a new trial.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 So. 2d 960, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10883, 1991 WL 224548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharif-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack