REHOLGA MACK WOODY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. Although there are differences between all three of these cases, we believe the disposition of this case should be controlled by the rationale set out in Morgan v. State, 405 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), rather than our recent decision in Patterson v. State, 419 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (7 FLW 1870).
We do not believe the trial court abused its discretion under the facts of this case in excluding the testimony of a surprise witness produced by the defendant on the last day of trial. There is no explanation as to why the defendant, who was shown to have known of this witness for some time, did not disclose his existence earlier. In addition, the witness’ testimony was offered for the limited purpose of impeaching a portion of another witness’ testimony and not for the direct purpose of exculpating the defendant.
The trial court’s ruling reflects a proper balancing, in our view, of the propositions that the reciprocal rules of discovery should be followed so long as the defendant is not denied his fundamental right to defend himself. Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971).
ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., and SHA-HOOD, GEORGE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tomengo v. State, 864 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…to exclude a defense witness because of a discovery violation should balance “the propositions that the reciprocal rules of discovery should be followed so long as the defendant is not denied his fundamental right to defend himself.” Woody v. State, 423 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We conclude that the Richardson hearing conducted here was inadequate because the court failed to make the findings required by Richardson and failed to consider alternatives other than exclusion of the witness, such as sanctio…
-
Mattear v. State, 657 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…examination had been completed and because the evidence was of massive import in that essentially someone else was confessing to the crime, the state would be prejudiced by the introduction of the testimony without prior notice. In Woody v. State, 423 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), this court noted that a trial court’s decision to exclude testimony for a discovery violation should balance “the propositions that the reciprocal rules of discovery should be followed so long as the defendant is not denied…
-
Casseus v. State, 902 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ct examination already complete. This court concluded that the trial court had erred in excluding the testimony. However, as admitting the testimony would have prejudiced the state, a mistrial was the appropriate remedy. We said: In Woody v. State, 423 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), this court noted that a trial court’s decision to exclude testimony for a discovery violation should balance “the propositions that the reciprocal rulés of discovery should be followed so long as the defendant is not denied…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Patterson v. State, 419 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Morgan v. State, 405 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)