State committed a discovery violation in Florida

2009In this direct criminal appeal, we agree with appellant that the state committed a discovery violation when it failed to disclose a recording of a conversation between appellant and his mother made while appellant was in jail awaiting trial, and that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).

2008The appellant asserts that these oral statements were not disclosed to the defense prior to trial, and thus the state committed a discovery violation to which counsel should have objected and requested a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), once the violation became known at trial.

2018Id. (emphasis added); see also Kucher v. State, 758 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (finding the State committed a discovery violation by failing to provide defense with oral statement of defendant, even though the State’s discovery notice had stated that there were statements by the defendant; “[t]he fact that defense counsel has been provided the witness's name and fails to depose the witness does not excuse prosecution's failure to inform the defense of a statement made by the defendant to which the witness will testify.”). 18 The State had the obligation of providing to the defense th

2018Id. (emphasis added); see also Kucher v. State, 758 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (finding the State committed a discovery violation by failing to provide defense with oral statement of defendant, even though the State’s discovery notice had stated that there were statements by the defendant; “[t]he fact that defense counsel has been provided the witness's name and fails to depose the witness does not excuse prosecution's failure to inform the defense of a statement made by the defendant to which the witness will testify.”).

2014The State committed a discovery violation “when it failed to disclose to [Smith] a material change in the State [witness’s] deposition statement.’ Scipio, 928 So.2d at 1145 .” Id. at 506.

2009The State committed a discovery violation “when it failed to disclose to [Smith] a material change in the State [witness’s] deposition statement.” Scipio, 928 So.2d at 1145 .

2021Cf. Durrance v. State, 44 So. 3d 217, 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Moreover, even if the state committed a discovery violation by failing to produce the transcript prior to the start of trial, we would find the trial court’s failure to conduct a complete Richardson hearing to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because the state never used any of the prior trial testimony.”).

2010Rule 3.220(b)(1)(C) requires the State to disclose “any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant....” As we recently held in Durrance v. State, 44 So.3d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), “[t]he state, having disclosed the existence of the prior ... testimony, was not required to provide the substance of the written or recorded testimony, nor was it required to do the defense’s job by pointing out exactly which parts of the ... testimony that it intended to use.” However, we find that the State committed a discovery violation when it failed to identif

2017See Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805, 813 (Fla. 1996) (holding that even if the State committed a discovery violation by disclosing to defense counsel during trial the additional results of the fingerprint expert’s analysis performed one day before trial, the trial court did not err in concluding that the defense was not prejudiced as there still remained a substantial number of unidentified prints even after the analysis so that the third-party theory could still be asserted).

2010The court did not inquire whether the State committed a discovery violation when it failed to identify Detective Foster as a “rebuttal to alibi witness.” As a result, the court did not conduct an adequate inquiry into the three requisite factors: “(1) whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent; (2) whether it was trivial or substantial; and (3) whether it had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party’s trial preparation.” McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312, 321 (Fla.2007).

2010The court did not inquire whether the State committed a discovery violation when it failed to identify Detective Foster as a “rebuttal to alibi witness.” As a result, the court did not conduct an adequate inquiry into the three requisite factors: “(1) whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent; (2) whether it was trivial or substantial; and (3) whether it had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party’s trial preparation.” McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312, 321 (Fla.2007).

2009However, having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt “that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation.” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006) (citing State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1995)).

2009See Tarrant v. State, 668 So.2d 223, 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (where trial court did not make formal finding on the record whether there was a discovery violation, trial court’s inquiry was inadequate).

2006McArthur v. State, 671 So.2d 867, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

2000See Pender v. State, 700 So.2d 664, 667 (Fla.1997) ("[W]here a trial court rules that no discovery violation occurred, the reviewing *1180 court must first determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.").

1998See Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971); Hatcher v. State, 568 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 577 So.2d 1328 (Fla.1991).

1994While a Richardson hearing is only required where the court determines that a discovery violation has occurred, Justus v. State, 438 So.2d 358, 365 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1052 , 104 S.Ct. 1332 , 79 L.Ed.2d 726 (1984), the record here clearly shows that the State committed a discovery violation by not disclosing Burnside's palm prints to the defendant.