Talavera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Talavera v. State

523 So. 2d 1258, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1049, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1689, 1988 WL 39135

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1151

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 523 So. 2d 1258 (Talavera 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

Talavera v. State, 523 So. 2d 1258, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1049, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1689, 1988 WL 39135 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Luis Talavera, challenges the judgment and sentence entered after he was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine. We reverse.

During the state’s case in chief, counsel for the appellant objected to the introduction of testimony by two of the state’s witnesses on the basis that the state had violated the rules of discovery. Similarly, during the presentation of the defense, the state objected to the introduction of certain pieces of physical evidence alleging that the defense had not complied with the rules of discovery in regard to such evidence. The trial court ruled adversely to the appellant on each of these objections without fully inquiring as to whether the alleged violations were inadvertent or willful, whether they were trivial or substantial, and whether they had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party’s ability to prepare for trial as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). Failure to hold a Richardson hearing is per se reversible error, without regard to the harmless error rule. See Brown v. State, 515 So.2d 211 (Fla.1987); Smith v. State, 500 So.2d 125 (Fla.1986).

We, accordingly, reverse the appellant’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.

Reversed.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Luis Talavera, challenges the judgment and sentence entered after he was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine. We reverse.

During the state’s case in chief, counsel for the appellant objected to the introduction of testimony by two of the state’s witnesses on the basis that the state had violated the rules of discovery. Similarly, during the presentation of the defense, the state objected to the introduction of certain pieces of physical evidence alleging that the defense had not complied with the rules of discovery in regard to such evidence. The trial court ruled adversely to the appellant on each of these objections without fully inquiring as to whether the alleged violations were inadvertent or willful, whether they were trivial or substantial, and whether they had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party’s ability to prepare for trial as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). Failure to hold a Richardson hearing is per se reversible error, without regard to the harmless error rule. See Brown v. State, 515 So.2d 211 (Fla.1987); Smith v. State, 500 So.2d 125 (Fla.1986).

We, accordingly, reverse the appellant’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.

Reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 1258, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1049, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1689, 1988 WL 39135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talavera-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack