RICKY JAMES, 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 did not abuse its discretion in excluding the rebuttal testimony due to a discovery violation, and any error was harmless.
Appellant was convicted of uttering a forgery and appealed, arguing the trial court erred by excluding defense rebuttal testimony due to a discovery v…
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 Rebuttal Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James appeals his conviction and sentence for uttering a forgery. His contention on appeal is that the trial court erred when it excluded a defense witnesses’ rebuttal testimony because the defense failed to disclose the name of the witness during discovery. The trial judge found that the discovery violation was intentional, and would have prejudiced the state.
Trial courts have broad discretion in making such findings,1 and the record demonstrates no basis for us to conclude the trial court abused its discretion with regard to these rulings. Further, any error in this regard was harmless in this case because the next witness called by the defense testified to the same facts sought to be elicited from the excluded witness. Thus the excluded testimony was cumulative, at best. See § 924.051(7), Fla. Stat. (1997) (judgment may not be reversed absent an express finding that prejudicial error occurred in the trial court).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . See Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1995); Sinclair v. State, 657 So. 2d 1138 (Fla.1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995)
- Sinclair v. State, 657 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1995)