M.F.
v.
STATE
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.
Where a trial court initially finds a discovery violation but subsequently determines the document was in fact provided in discovery, there is no violation and thus no need to analyze procedural prejudice.
[1] Where a discovery violation is cured by production of the withheld document, no procedural prejudice analysis is required.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State allegedly failed to produce a property receipt for evidence impounded at the scene in a juvenile delinquency case. After a sidebar conferenc…
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
LOGUE, J.
The juvenile defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred by not finding procedural prejudice when it conducted a Richardson1 hearing to address an alleged discovery violation by the State. The trial court initially ruled that the State had inadvertently committed a discovery violation by not producing the property receipt for evidence which had been impounded at the scene. However, the transcript of the adjudicatory hearing demonstrates that after a subsequent sidebar conference, the court determined that the “document was provided in discovery. So there’s no violation.” The ruling that no violation occurred moots any inquiry into whether there was procedural prejudice. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.N. v. State, 272 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)