Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schoppgreen2 sentences2014A defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced “if there is a reasonable [possibility] that the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.” Cox v. State, 819 So. 2d 705, 712 (Fla. 2002) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla. 1995)); see also Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138, 1149-50 (Fla. 2006). 2014A defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced “if there is a reasonable [possibility] that the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.” Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 712 (Fla.2002) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)); see also Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1149-50 (Fla.2006). | 7 | 7 |
Cox v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Brown, 165 So.3d at 729-30 . “[W]here the State commits a discovery violation, the standard for deeming the violation harmless is extraordinarily high.” Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 712 (Fla.2002). 2014See Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 712 (Fla.2002) (“[W]here the State commits a discovery violation, the standard for deeming the violation harmless is extraordinarily high. | 6 | 9 |
Pomeranz v. Stategreen2 sentences2010A defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced “if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.” Pomeranz v. State, 703 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla.1997) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)). 2009A defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced 'if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant's trial preparation or strategy would have been materially diffei'ent had the violation not occurred.’ Pomeranz v. State, 703 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla.1997) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)). | 5 | 5 |
Scipio v. Stategreen2 sentences2014A defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced “if there is a reasonable [possibility] that the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred.” Cox v. State, 819 So. 2d 705, 712 (Fla. 2002) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla. 1995)); see also Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138, 1149-50 (Fla. 2006). 2008When "`the State commits a discovery violation, the standard for deeming the violation harmless is extraordinarily high.'" Scipio, 928 So.2d at 1149 (quoting Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 712 (Fla. 2002)). | 2 | 3 |
Suda v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Then, in analyzing whether the discovery violation was harmless, this Court reiterated the procedural prejudice analysis of Schopp : "[O]nly if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless." Id. (quoting Pomeranz v. State, 703 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla. 1997)); see also Irish v. State, 889 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that a prior statement made by the defendant to the police that was withheld from the defense attorney undermined the defense's theory and therefore | 1 | 1 |
Portner v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Then, in analyzing whether the discovery violation was harmless, this Court reiterated the procedural prejudice analysis of Schopp : "[O]nly if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless." Id. (quoting Pomeranz v. State, 703 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla. 1997)); see also Irish v. State, 889 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that a prior statement made by the defendant to the police that was withheld from the defense attorney undermined the defense's theory and therefore | 1 | 1 |
Irish v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Then, in analyzing whether the discovery violation was harmless, this Court reiterated the procedural prejudice analysis of Schopp : "[O]nly if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless." Id. (quoting Pomeranz v. State, 703 So.2d 465, 468 (Fla. 1997)); see also Irish v. State, 889 So.2d 979, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that a prior statement made by the defendant to the police that was withheld from the defense attorney undermined the defense's theory and therefore | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jaime Deandre Brown v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2016Brown, 165 So.3d at 729-30 . “[W]here the State commits a discovery violation, the standard for deeming the violation harmless is extraordinarily high.” Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 712 (Fla.2002). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.