Storey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Storey v. State

539 So. 2d 1164, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 604, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1069, 1989 WL 20688

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 1989

DocketNo. 87-1923

StatusPublished

This text of 539 So. 2d 1164 (Storey 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

Storey v. State, 539 So. 2d 1164, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 604, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1069, 1989 WL 20688 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ralph Storey, was found guilty by a jury and sentenced for trafficking in cocaine.

A Richardson hearing was conducted by the trial court prior to trial, pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), because the state had failed to include the name of Detective Christobal Reyes on its list of witnesses. Reyes was one of only two witnesses able to testify that appellant had direct contact with the contraband. In view of the conflicts in the evidence and the paucity of evidence on the element of intent, we hold that insufficient inquiry was made into this apparently inadvertent but seemingly prejudicial discovery [1165]*1165violation. The minimum requirements for a Richardson inquiry have recently been reiterated by our supreme court in State v. Hall, 509 So.2d 1093 (Fla.1987).

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ralph Storey, was found guilty by a jury and sentenced for trafficking in cocaine.

A Richardson hearing was conducted by the trial court prior to trial, pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), because the state had failed to include the name of Detective Christobal Reyes on its list of witnesses. Reyes was one of only two witnesses able to testify that appellant had direct contact with the contraband. In view of the conflicts in the evidence and the paucity of evidence on the element of intent, we hold that insufficient inquiry was made into this apparently inadvertent but seemingly prejudicial discovery [1165]*1165violation. The minimum requirements for a Richardson inquiry have recently been reiterated by our supreme court in State v. Hall, 509 So.2d 1093 (Fla.1987).

We reverse and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

539 So. 2d 1164, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 604, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1069, 1989 WL 20688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/storey-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack