Richardson v. State, 69--26
| Citation | 233 So.2d 868 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--26,69--26 |
| Parties | William H. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. . Second District |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Thomas J. Hanlon, Tampa, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
This is an appeal from appellant's conviction of the offense of arson after a jury trial in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record. Appellant was sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary.
On December 5, 1968, appellant filed a Motion for a List of Witnesses, a Motion for a List of Witnesses Upon Whose Evidence the Information is Based, 1 and an Offer to Furnish State With List of Defense Witnesses. 2 On December 11, 1968, appellee filed a list of witnesses which included no addresses.
On December 16, 1968, the day before the trial began, appellee filed a list of six additional witnesses, including three addresses. On the same day appellee filed an amended witness list naming two more witnesses with no addresses.
A careful study of the record indicates that appellant was not prejudiced by appellee's noncompliance with the rule.
We would like to point out, however, that Rule 1.220(e) is mandatory in its direction that once the defendant chooses to set it into motion, the prosecuting attorney shall furnish the required witness list within the specified time. The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure were promulgated with the intent that they would be complied with. We will in the future expect the State to comply with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The non-compliance thereof could very well require reversal or a new trial at the expense of the taxpayers which could be easily avoided by merely adhering to the rules.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. State
...of the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record convicting the petitioner of the crime of arson following jury trial. Richardson v. State, Fla.App., 233 So.2d 868. The State challenges this Court's jurisdiction to review the decision below, claiming that no conflict has been shown betwe......
-
Cooper v. State, 76-2304
...the prosecutor to produce such a statement once demanded. Ramirez v. State, 241 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Richardson v. State, 233 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Such demand had been made shortly after the information was filed. The prosecutor never produced the statement. Once the cour......
-
Carter v. State, 83-2603
...characterizes the prosecutor's action as a discovery violation contending that failure of the trial court to conduct a Richardson v. State, 233 So.2d 868 (Fla.App.1970), inquiry (first postulated in Ramirez v. State, 241 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)) resulted in reversible error. Labels ar......
-
Williams v. State, 71--19
...and where the omission can not be otherwise remedied. See also Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 744; Richardson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 868, and Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d We are of the opinion, in line with the comments here made and the provisions of Wilso......