TOMMY SPAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Although the prosecutor violated the witness sequestration rule by meeting with the police officer and informant during trial to discuss inconsistencies in their testimony, the violation constituted harmless error because the inconsistencies were brought before the jury and the trial court's Richardson hearing found the misconduct harmless.
[1] A prosecutor's discussion with witnesses together after a sequestration order has been invoked violates the witness sequestration rule.
[2] A violation of the witness sequestration rule does not constitute a discovery violation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“”
Court acknowledges sequestration violation but distinguishes it from discovery violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested following a drug transaction at a restaurant where a police officer and informant were present. The officer and informant gave …
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 Witness Sequestration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion for postconviction relief in Lake County Circuit Court Case No. 1973-CF-122. We affirm the trial court’s order and caution him that abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous filings directed to the identified lower court case number may result in sanctions such as a bar on pro se filing in this Court and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings, which may include forfeiture of gain time. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2018); State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
EISNAUGLE, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999)
- Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1976)
- Bush v. State, 461 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1984)
- Ronny A. Zamora v. State, 361 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Bush v. Florida, 475 U.S. 1031 (U.S. 1986)
- Cooper v. Florida, 431 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1977)