Ratcliff v. State, 87-2062
| Decision Date | 23 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2062,87-2062 |
| Citation | 561 So.2d 1276 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1439 Frank Earl RATCLIFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for resisting arrest with violence. Of his various contentions on appeal we find merit in one and reverse and remand for a new trial.
That contention is that the trial court's failure to conduct a RICHARDSON * hearing after an objection by defendant to a discovery violation by the state constituted per se reversible error. See Lee v. State, 538 So.2d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); D.M. v. State, 421 So.2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The violation was the failure of the state to include on its witness list the name of a rebuttal witness called by the state. Rebuttal witnesses are not excepted from the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. See Stone v. State, 547 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); D.M.
While the state makes the argument on appeal that the need to call the witness could not have been anticipated, that was an aspect which should have been resolved at a Richardson hearing. See Lee. Nor do we agree with the state's argument that the contention was not preserved for appellate review by a specific request for a Richardson hearing. See Lee; D.M.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elledge v. State, 74789
...been marked prior to the time defense counsel asked for a side-bar conference. We approve the view expressed in Ratcliff v. State, 561 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), that when the State asserts that it is excused from compliance with discovery because it could not have anticipated def......
-
Holmes v. State, 93-01634
...and thus trigger the need for further inquiry. See Elledge v. State, 613 So.2d 434 (Fla.1993) (citing with approval Ratcliff v. State, 561 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), for the proposition that when the state claims no discovery violation has occurred, the issue should be determined in a R......
-
James v. State, 93-00750
...Whether the state intended to use the photograph is an issue that should have been resolved at a Richardson hearing. Ratcliff v. State, 561 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We note that the state apparently anticipated the need for the photograph because the prosecutor had it with him in the ......
-
Sharif v. State, 90-01174
...is not excepted from the state's discovery obligation prescribed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b). Ratcliff v. State, 561 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The trial court's inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the state's non-compliance with the discovery rules was inadequ......