Hickey v. State
| Citation | 484 So.2d 1271,11 Fla. L. Weekly 431 |
| Decision Date | 13 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-283,85-283 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 431, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 698 Charles Patrick HICKEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Larry B. Henderson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Margene A. Roper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
The defendant was charged with second degree murder after an altercation between himself and the victim, John P. Stark, Jr., which resulted in Stark's death from a stab wound. After a four day trial the jury found him guilty as charged. He appeals from that conviction, and for the reasons discussed, we are compelled to reverse for a new trial.
Defendant's counsel filed a pre-trial motion for discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. This included a request for written, recorded or oral statements made by the accused as provided for in Rule 3.220(a)(1)(iii). In its response the State furnished defendant with a copy of the arrest report which made reference to statements of the defendant, but failed to furnish the defendant with a copy of a follow-up investigative report prepared by the investigating officer a few days after he had made his arrest report, which later report contained different and contradictory statements and denials allegedly made by the accused.
When the State attempted to introduce into evidence the contents of the follow-up report during re-direct examination of the police officer, defendant's counsel objected on the ground that he had not been furnished with a copy prior to trial, and until that moment was not even aware of its existence. The State argued that it had not intended to use that report at trial, but its use had been made necessary by the cross-examination of the witness. The trial court, without conducting any hearing as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971) summarily ruled that there had been no discovery violation because "[d]iscovery rules apply to statements the state intends to use at trial."
Just as a defendant is entitled to the names of all persons known by the State who have information pertaining to the charge, and not just those persons the State intends to call as witnesses at the trial, Wortman v. State, 472 So.2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), so is a defendant entitled to a disclosure of all statements made by him, not just those the State intends to use at trial. Rule 3.220(a)(1)(iii) requires the prosecution to disclose, upon demand,
[a]ny written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the accused, including a copy of any statements contained in police reports or report summaries, together with the name and address of each witness to the statements.
The rule does not contain the limitation suggested by the State. By not furnishing the report containing the later statements, the State violated the rule.
Once it is apparent that the State has committed a violation of the discovery rule, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the non-compliance would result in harm or prejudice to the defendant, but the court's discretion can be properly exercised only after the court has made an adequate inquiry into all of the surrounding circumstances. Such an inquiry should at least cover the questions of whether the violation was inadvertent or willful, whether the violation is trivial or substantial, and what effect, if any, the violation had upon the ability of the other party to prepare for trial. Richardson, 246 So.2d at 775. Without such inquiry the harmless error doctrine cannot be applied. McDonnough v. State, 402 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). As the Florida supreme court noted in Cumbie v. State, 345 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1977):
It is clear that the trial court's investigation of the question of prejudice was not the full inquiry Richardson requires. No appellate court can be certain that errors of this type are harmless. A review of the cold record is not an adequate substitute for a trial judge's determined inquiry into all aspects of the state's breach of the rules, as Richardson indicates. Especially is this so in cases such as this, where a false response is given to a request for discovery. The mere fact that alleged statements are attributed to the petitioner cannot relieve the state of its duty to disclose; that is precisely the situation contemplated by Rule 3.220(a)(1)(iii).
Id. at 1062. The failure of the trial court to make the necessary Richardson inquiry requires reversal for a new trial.
Since the case must be retried, one additional point requires discussion. The appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by unreasonably limiting closing argument in this murder trial to 30 minutes per side, thus, he says, depriving him of his constitutional right to due process and to a fair trial. The trial consumed four days. The transcript of the testimony consists of almost 750 pages of the record, and the entire trial transcript runs close to 900 pages. This was a bitterly fought trial, full of acrimony between the prosecutor and defense counsel, and replete with verbal altercations between the defense counsel and the trial judge. We can well understand the exasperation of the trial judge in having to cope with the repetitious, confusing and often irrelevant examination and cross-examination of witnesses by defense counsel, interspersed with constant motions for mistrial and recusal, and other obstructive trial tactics of this lawyer, but despite this, the trial judge must ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial, and then deal with the lawyer separately. 1
In several recent cases, we have disapproved severe limitation of closing argument in criminal cases. 2 Oth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Taylor, Docket No. 79360
...8 Ark.App. 283, 653 S.W.2d 159 (1983); People v. District Court of 2nd Judicial District, 664 P.2d 247 (Colo., 1983); Hickey v. State, 484 So.2d 1271 (Fla.App.1986); People v. Norks, 137 Ill.App.3d 1078, 92 Ill.Dec. 406, 484 N.E.2d 1261 (1985); Stark v. State, 489 N.E.2d 43 (Ind., 1986); St......
-
Smith v. State
...State, 377 So.2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.1979); Wilcox v. State, 367 So.2d 1020, 1023 (Fla.1979); Cumbie, 345 So.2d at 1062; Hickey v. State, 484 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 492 So.2d 1335 (Fla.1986); Raffone v. State, 483 So.2d 761, 763 (Fla. 4th DCA), dismissed, 491 So.2d 281 ......
-
People v. Clark
...1 (1994); State v. Crooks, 884 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo.App., 1994); Moore v. State, 848 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex.App., 1993); Hickey v. State, 484 So.2d 1271, 1274 (Fla., 1986); State v. Williams, supra at 950, citing Herring, supra; United States v. King, 650 F.2d 534 (C.A.4, 1981); Ruedas v. Texas,......
-
State v. Hall
...377 So.2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.1979); Wilcox v. State, 367 So.2d 1020, 1023 (Fla.1979); Cumbie, 345 So.2d at 1062; Hickey v. State, 484 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Raffone, 483 So.2d at 763; R.R. v. State, 476 So.2d 218, 218-19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), approved, 502 So.2d 1244 (Fla.1987); L......