MURRAYDELL JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred by denying a motion for mistrial without conducting a full inquiry into the state's discovery violation as mandated by Richardson v. State.
The state responded to discovery that the defendant made no statements. At trial, the state elicited testimony about an oral statement made by the def…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jones seeks reversal of his convictions for robbery and false imprisonment contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial without conducting a full inquiry as mandated by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), into the circumstances surrounding the state’s violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(l)(iii). We agree and reverse.
In response to Jones’ written discovery demand, the state replied that Jones had made no written, recorded or oral statements. At trial, the state, over Jones’ objection and motion for mistrial, elicited testimony from the arresting officer concerning an oral statement made by Jones at the time of his arrest. The inquiry conducted by the trial court was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Richardson, supra, since the circumstances establishing non-prejudice to Jones do not affirmatively appear in the record. Counsel’s knowledge of Jones’ statement prior to trial may well have affected defense tactics or may have afforded defense counsel an opportunity to refute or temper the prejudicial effect of the statement. Since the inquiry herein does not comply with the dictates of Richardson, supra, the cause must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla.1979).
McCORD, Acting C. J., SHIVERS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wendell v. State, 404 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…by Richardson is not made, an appellate court cannot review the record and determine that the error was harmless. Cumbie v. State, supra; Boynton v. State, 378 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1980); Jones v. State, 376 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); McClellan v. State, 359 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 892 (Fla.1978). The trial court referred to Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla.1976), in stating that it was sufficient to allow defense counse…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Smith v. State, 372 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1979)