Rainey v. State, 91-00763
| Decision Date | 01 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-00763,91-00763 |
| Citation | 596 So.2d 1295 |
| Parties | Joseph RAINEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 596 So.2d 1295, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1116 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard J. Sanders, Gulfport, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Brenda S. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of one count of kidnapping and one count each of aggravated assault, battery, and displaying or using a weapon while committing a felony. We reverse because we believe a discovery violation by the state during trial was so prejudicial to the defense that the appellant's motion for a mistrial should have been granted.
The offenses which are the subject of this proceeding all arose from an incident that occurred at the Veterans' Administration Office in downtown St. Petersburg on May 11, 1989. Witnesses described the appellant's behavior at the time as rather bizarre. The defense at trial was insanity. Two psychologists testified that the appellant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offenses, and he could not distinguish between right and wrong or appreciate the nature of his actions.
During its case in chief, the state presented testimony from six individuals who were inside the Veterans' Administration Building at the time of the incident. During the direct examination of one of these witnesses, the following colloquy took place:
Q. Did you ever hear the defendant make any statements as to whether or not he knew what he was doing was wrong?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was this in response to questions, or did he just come out with a statement?
A. It was in response to a question. The question was do you believe in God?
Q. What was his response to that?
A. His response was yes. I am a Christian. I know that what I'm doing is wrong and that I will roast in hell for this.
Defense counsel immediately asserted a discovery violation in that the statement of the appellant to which the witness testified had not been revealed to the defense. Defense counsel claimed prejudice and moved for a mistrial. The state's only response was that the witness who gave the testimony quoted above had been listed as a witness since the onset of the case and "certainly he's been available for deposition."
The trial court did not seem to be fully convinced that there was a discovery violation involved here, but there was, and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fabregas v. State, 3D00-3255.
...retrying the defendant with the assistance of another expert. See Mattear v. State, 657 So.2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Rainey v. State, 596 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Under the circumstances, we find the exclusion of Dr. Haber's testimony too severe a remedy for the discovery violation h......
-
Hahn v. State, 92-1651
...duty to disclose witnesses, regardless of whether the defendant could obtain this information by another means. See Rainey v. State, 596 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that even though the defendant knew the witness's name and failed to depose him, the state was still required to di......
-
J.S. v. State
...the defendant to which the witness testifies.’ " Powell v. State, 912 So. 2d 698, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) ). Therefore, because there was at least a colorable claim that the State violated its obligation to provide supplement......
-
Mason v. State, 94-00755
...was on the state's witness list and Mason failed to depose him does not vitiate the state's discovery violation. See Rainey v. State, 596 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Once the trial court is aware of the state's failure to provide discovery, the trial court must conduct a hearing which ad......