QUINTON MOORER, 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's failure to conduct a Richardson hearing after a discovery violation objection constitutes reversible error.
Appellant was charged with resisting an officer with violence after a SWAT team entered his apartment. During the trial, an officer testified that app…
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 Procedural Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
At about 7 a.m. one January morning, a detective and 17 members of the Sunrise Police Department SWAT team broke into appellant’s apartment to execute a search warrant. They found appellant asleep on the living room couch. Appellant punched and kicked multiple officers, leading to the charge in this case for resisting an officer with violence. A search of the residence uncovered young children and two women, but no drugs or guns.
At appellant’s trial, a police sergeant testified that when asked for his name, appellant falsely provided that of his brother. Defense counsel immediately objected that such information had not been provided in discovery. The trial court overruled the objection without inquiring further. The sergeant conceded that his police report said nothing about the false name.
Appellant’s objection was sufficient to raise the issue of a discovery violation. The trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson1 hearing is reversible error unless a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced. See Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 505-06 *1243(Fla.2009); State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020-21 (Fla.1995). We cannot say that the defense was not so prejudiced.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
WARNER and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gage v. State, 147 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ble possibility that the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.’ ” Ibarra, 56 So. 3d at 72 (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)); see also Moorer v. State, 133 So. 3d 1242, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Lynch v. State, 925 So. 2d 444, 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); cf. Lewis v. State, 22 So. 3d 753, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (examining changes defendant claimed he would have made in trial preparation and finding beyond reasonable…
-
Robinson v. State, 198 So. 3d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…1 So. 3d 930, 936 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). “The trial court’s failure to conduct a Richardson hearing is reversible error unless a reviewing court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced.” Moorer v. State, 133 So. 3d 1242, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (footnote omitted). “[T]he defense is procedurally prejudiced if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially differed had the violation not occurred.” Stat…
-
Cristian Olano Sanchez v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995)
- Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2009)