Matheson v. State, s. 67331
| Citation | 500 So.2d 1341,12 Fla. L. Weekly 67 |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | 67330,Nos. 67331,s. 67331 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 67 Ronald MATHESON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent, Timothy Michael JOYCE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mark King Leban of the Law Offices of Mark King Leban, P.A., Miami, and Ronald C. Dresnick of Bailey, Gerstein, Rashkind and Dresnick, P.A., Miami, and Milton M. Ferrell, Jr., Miami, for petitioners.
Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Sarah B. Mayer Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
We accepted jurisdiction of Matheson v. State, 468 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, on the basis of conflict with, inter alia, Spurlock v. State, 420 So.2d 875 (Fla.1982); Thomas v. State, 419 So.2d 634 (Fla.1982); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); Cumbie v. State, 345 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1977); and Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). Having considered the petitioners' arguments and reviewed the record in these consolidated cases, it is clear that there is no express and direct conflict between the opinion under review and the cases asserted as creating conflict jurisdiction.
Petitioners Matheson and Joyce were convicted of conspiring to traffic in cannabis and carrying a concealed firearm. In response to their pre-trial requests for discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, the state provided a duplicate copy of a tape recording one-half hour in length which contained incriminating statements made by the petitioners during a one hour and ten minute motel-room meeting with an undercover officer. The recording officer stated prior to trial that the tape was complete. In point of fact, it was clear from the tape itself that it ended in mid-conversation. Counsel for Joyce and counsel for Matheson each sent a letter to the prosecutor inquiring as to the existence of a second tape. The state failed to respond notwithstanding the prosecutor's knowledge that the tape was incomplete. The defense did not pursue the matter through a motion to compel or any other means. The recording officer testified at trial that, due to operational error, the tape contained only one-half hour of the one hour and ten minute meeting. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the state's failure to inform the defense that the tape was incomplete. After extensive argument regarding the admissibility of the tape, the trial court denied the motion. No Richardson hearing was held. The undercover officer then testified as to the events occurring and the statements made during the motel-room meeting. No specific objection was made as to the admissibility of this testimony on the ground of failure to disclose these statements.
The district court found that rule 3.220(a)(1)(viii) requires the prosecutor to disclose "[w]hether there has been any electronic surveillance ... of the premises of the accused, or of conversations to which the accused was a party" and, in addition, to permit inspection and copying of any recorded conversations. The court found no duty to disclose what was self-evident from the tape itself; that it ended in mid-conversation, that it was only one-half hour in length, and that, therefore, it could not be a complete recording of the one hour and ten minute meeting. The court concluded that since no discovery violation had occurred, no Richardson hearing was required. We agree. The state provided a copy of the tape to the defense, thus fulfilling its obligation under rule 3.220(a)(1)(viii).
Petitioners now claim that the substance of statements missing from the tape and subsequently admitted into evidence through the undercover officer's testimony was never disclosed to the defense. The district court found that this alleged discovery violation was not raised at trial and has, therefore, been waived. As ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herrera v. State, 87-893
...Edwards v. State, 529 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Matheson v. State, 468 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), cause dismissed, 500 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1987); State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Gomien v. State, 172 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Cf. Springer v. State, 429 So.......
-
Consalvo v. State
...that no discovery violation occurred under these circumstances and that a Richardson 9 hearing was not required. Matheson v. State, 500 So.2d 1341, 1342 (Fla.1987). We also find the State's failure to disclose the letter requesting the lab analysis of the cigarette butts did not constitute ......
-
Street v. State
...was no discovery violation. Therefore, a Richardson inquiry was not necessary. Downing v. State, 536 So.2d 189 (Fla.1988); Matheson v. State, 500 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1987); Bush v. State, 461 So.2d 936 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1031, 106 S.Ct. 1237, 89 L.Ed.2d 345 (1986); Justus v. Sta......
-
Santana v. State, 88-34
...Second, there was no discovery violation below, and, consequently no Richardson hearing was required to be held. See Matheson v. State, 500 So.2d 1341, 1342-43 (Fla.1987); Jackson v. State, 369 So.2d 1029, 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 206 (Fla.1980). Third, evidence that......