Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

from the operation of discowry rules, and a Richardson hearing is required to
determine &ether unlisted rebuttal Witnesses my testify. Kilpatrick v, State,
376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979); Fascnnyer v. - State, 383 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st. D.C.A.
1980); Wibner v. State, 394 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1981).
Here, the prosecutor himself brought the discovery violation tn the
murt's attention in order to "save tine because IW. Link is going to object
to him being called". (T. 2013).
of the violation, defense counsel objected b the witness's testhny on tm
grounds, one of mi& was the discovery violation. (T. 2-13-2014).
inanbent upn the trial court to conduct a Eaiclkdson hearing at which it
was the state's burden to affinnatively show that the defense was not prejudiced.
-
&Clellan v. State, 359 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1.978); Lavigne v. State,
349 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977).
After the prosecutor stated the circumstances
It was then
It is never hamiless error where a Richadson hearing is required but
not had, Wie, supra, unless cirdnstances establishing non-prejudice to the
defendantafhmtivdy appr in the record.
(Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1983).
Witnesses who were friends or relatives of Ellwmd's to testify that FJlwmd had
a gaod reputation for truth and veracity, had the prosecutor cclmplied with the
discovery rule.
detective's deposition, or at least interviewed him, in order to properly
prepare a cross-examination, to investigate the basis of the detective's opinion,
or to investigate the detective's crwn reputation.
Fla. R. Grim. P. 3.220 by the prosecution, defense counsel had no opportunity
to counter the effect of the detective's testhny.
- Poe v. State, 431 So. 2d 266
Defense counsel here could have attwted to locate
With adequate notice, defense counsel could have taken the
Because of the violation of
The prosecution took full
advantage of the situation in closing argurmt, referring to Ellwood as a
"pathological liar". (T. 2270). n-Se prejudice to the defense is evident; the
r d y is reversal. Richardson, supra; Cmbie, supra.
Page -55-