green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
36.5 score
“the prosecutor has a duty to disclose in discovery 'any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant.' this duty 'extends to a defendant's statements made to a witness who is not an agent of the state.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Morris v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough County)
the prosecutor has a duty to disclose in discovery 'any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant.' this duty 'extends to a defendant's statements made to a witness who is not an agent of the state.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
BRIAN K. SMITH v. STATE OF FLORIDA
This requirement applies “even if the defendant does not request a Richardson hearing.” Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (internal citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
BRIAN K. SMITH v. STATE OF FLORIDA
This requirement applies “even if the defendant does not request a Richardson hearing.” Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GEOVANI JOHNSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (determining that the Richardson hearing requirement applies to a possible discovery violation, even if the defendant does not request a Richardson hearing).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ANTHONY FERRARI v. STATE OF FLORIDA
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cuminotto v. State, 101 So. 3d 930, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodney Tyrone Lowe v. State of Florida
The only case cited by Lowe, Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), is wholly distinguishable, as it involved the late disclosure by the State, in the middle of the trial, of a threat allegedly made by the defendant against the victim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ANTHONY FERRARI v. STATE OF FLORIDA
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cuminotto v. State, 101 So. 3d 930, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
GEOVANI JOHNSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (determining that the Richardson hearing requirement applies to a possible discovery violation, even if the defendant does not request a Richardson hearing).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dabbs v. State
When a possible discovery violation is raised to the trial court, “the court must conduct a Richardson hearing to inquire about the circumstances surrounding the state’s violation of the discovery rules and examine the possible prejudice to the defendant.” Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. State
Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cuminotto v. State
(2×)
“The denial of a motion for continuance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Hernandez-Alberto v. State, 889 So.2d 721, 730 (Fla.2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metayer v. State
We conclude that the gun was not relevant to this ease.”); see also Zama v. State, 54 So.3d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (error for the state to present evidence that defendant possessed a bullet-proof vest unconnected to crime); Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 712-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (error to admit gun-cleaning kit where nothing was shown to connect it to the crimes charged; its admission served only to suggest that at some point the defendant owned a gun).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State
(2×)
“There are no exact ‘magic words’ or phrases which must be used by the defense in order to necessi tate the [Richardson] inquiry; only the fact that a discovery request has not been met.” Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 506 (Fla.2009)); see also C.D.B. v. State, 662 So.2d 738, 741 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Brown v. State, 640 So.2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Raffone v. State, 483 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“While the defendants did not recite particular magic words, the manner in which they brought the matter to the trial …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maldonado v. State
“Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” § 90.401, Fla. Stat. “The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence and such determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. State
(2×)
However, “[t]here are no exact ‘magic words’ or phrases which must be used by the defense in order to necessitate the [Richardson ] inquiry; only the fact that a discovery request has not been met.” Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 506 (Fla.2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guzman v. State
In considering this issue, we have found cases involving a defendant preserving an alleged discovery violation for review when he raises the violation on the first day of trial, Pickel v. State, 32 So.3d 638, 639-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); before the state’s direct examination, Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 709-10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); during the state’s direct examina *944 tion, State v. Evans, 770 So.2d 1174, 1182 (Fla.2000); after the state’s direct examination, Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 505-06 (Fla.2009); and during his cross-examination, Powell v. State, 912 So.2d 698, 700-01 (Fla. 2…
cited
Cited "see"
Duane E. Armstrong v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
See Jones, 32 So.3d at 710–11.
discussed
Cited "see"
Martin v. State
(2×)
See Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (stating that the trial court is required to conduct a Richardson hearing when it learns of a discovery violation even if the defendant does not request the hearing); Lewis v. State, 22 So.3d 753, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Comer v. State, 730 So.2d 769, 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“Clearly, the Richardson requirements apply also where the defense committed the discovery violation.” (citing Brazell v. State, 570 So.2d 919, 921 (Fla.1990))).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryant v. State
See, e.g., Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 712-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (during a trial for attempted first degree murder and armed robbery, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude a gun cleaning kit seized from the defendant’s home, as “there was nothing unlawful about the defendant’s ownership of a gun cleaning kit and nothing was shown to connect it to the crimes charged”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Feast v. State
See, e.g., Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Felipe DOMINGUEZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
1D09-4278.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 6, 2010.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant., Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Wolf, Lewis, Marstiller.
Published
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Tasker v. State, 12 So.3d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), review granted, 29 So.3d 292 (Fla.2009).
WOLF, LEWIS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.