RICARDO MARVEN ST. JUSTE
v.
THE 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.
Ricardo Marven St. Juste appeals his simple assault conviction, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in finding no discovery violation after a Richardson hearing. St. Juste argued the victim's trial testimony materially differed from her recorded police statement and that the State failed to disclose the victim was not a confidential informant. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no discovery violation occurred.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding no discovery violation occurred. The victim's trial testimony was not inconsistent with her recorded statement, and the State properly disclosed that no confidential informant information had been provided.
[1] A trial court's determination that no discovery violation occurred is reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal.
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 intelligenceSt. Juste was convicted of simple assault. The victim provided a recorded, sworn statement to police and later testified at trial. St. Juste claimed t…
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 Simple Assault cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 23, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-258 Lower Tribunal Nos. M19-23779 & 20-92 AC ________________ Ricardo Marven St. Juste,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lizzet Martinez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sonia Perez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Ricardo Marven St. Juste appeals his conviction for simple assault, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by determining, after conducting a Richardson1 hearing, that the State had not committed a discovery violation.2 The grounds for the purported discovery violation are St. Juste’s claims that (i) the victim’s trial testimony materially differed from the victim’s recorded, sworn statement to the police, and (ii) the State failed to disclose to St. Juste that the victim was not a confidential informant.
With respect to the first claim, as reflected in the State’s answer brief – in which the State presents a side-by-side comparison between the victim’s trial testimony and the victim’s recorded, sworn statement – it is readily apparent that the victim’s trial testimony was not inconsistent with the victim’s recorded statement. As to the second claim, prior to trial, the State submitted discovery to St. Juste stating “[t]here is no material or information which has been provided by a confidential informant.”
On this record, we are unable to conclude that the State committed any discovery violation, much less that the trial court abused its discretion3 by coming to the same conclusion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Pender v. State, 700 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1997)