STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ASHLEY ADORNO, RESPONDENT
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 State of Florida challenged a trial court order excluding a key State witness as a sanction for a discovery violation. The appellate court granted the State's petition for writ of certiorari and quashed the exclusion order, holding that witness exclusion is an extreme sanction reserved only for exceptional circumstances.
The court held that witness exclusion is an extreme sanction that should be imposed only in the most exceptional circumstances, such as when conduct is purposeful, prejudicial, and intended to thwart justice. The circumstances in this case did not warrant such an extreme sanction.
[1] Exclusion of a witness is an extreme sanction reserved for exceptional circumstances.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding a witness when lesser sanctions would suffice.
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“Although it is within the judge's discretion to exclude witnesses that most extreme sanction should never be imposed except in the most extreme cases, such as when purposeful, prejudicial and with intent to thwart justice.”
Establishes the standard for when witness exclusion may be imposed as a discovery sanction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court excluded a State witness from testifying based on the State's commission of a Richardson violation (a discovery rule violation). The S…
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 Richardson Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s September 1, 2009, order which excluded a key State witness from testifying at Respondent’s trial, based on the State’s commission of a Richardson1 violation. Respondent concedes error and, thus, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the trial court excluding the State’s witness.
In O’Brien v. State, 454 So.2d 675, 676-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), this court held:
Appellant’s trial counsel failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(3) because he did not timely file a list of defense witnesses within seven days of receipt of the state’s list of witnesses. Defense counsel should be discouraged from doing that. Under appropriate circumstances sanctions should also be imposed against defense counsel, or even the defendant in some cases. Here the trial judge excluded all defense witnesses from giving testimony. Although it is within the judge’s discretion to exclude witnesses that most extreme sanction should never be imposed except in the most extreme cases, such as when purposeful, prejudicial and with intent to thwart justice. Anderson v. State, 314 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Williams v. State, 264 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Kruglak v. Slate, 300 So.2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Patterson v. State, 419 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
(Emphasis added). See also State v. Gonzalez, 695 So.2d 1290, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that exclusion of a witness is an appropriate sanction only where some lesser form of sanction has already failed); State v. Kalfani, 968 So.2d 599, 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“This court has reiterated that an alternative to dismissal is to continue the case for a period of time that is sufficient for the defendant to obtain the discovery and prepare for trial, assuming adequate time remains under the defendant’s speedy trial period.”).
We are not unsympathetic to a trial court’s need to manage a docket, frustrated by last minute delays on both sides, often occasioned by a lack of preparation. However, exclusion of either a State or defense witness is an extreme sanction *1271reserved for exceptional circumstances not found in the instant case.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
MONACO, C.J, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- O'Brien v. State, 454 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Patterson v. State, 419 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 264 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- State v. Gonzalez, 695 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Anderson v. State, 314 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Kruglak v. State, 300 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- State v. Amenhotep Alihakeem Kalfani, 968 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)