Rojas v. State, 5D04-495.
| Decision Date | 17 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D04-495.,5D04-495. |
| Citation | 904 So.2d 598 |
| Parties | Jorge ROJAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James S. Purdy, Public Defender and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Jorge Rojas (defendant) appeals his judgments and sentences, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial made when the State introduced evidence not timely disclosed during the discovery process. Concluding that a mistrial should have been granted, we reverse the defendant's judgments and sentences, and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial.
The defendant was charged with committing the crimes of burglary of a structure with an assault or battery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and false imprisonment (with a weapon and a mask). The charges arose out of an attempted robbery of a pawn shop. The defendant's defense was that the eyewitness identification indicating that he was the perpetrator of said crime was incorrect.
At trial, after the State presented testimony from several witnesses, the prosecutor notified the trial court that she had just received a DNA lab report. The report was dated almost two months earlier. The prosecutor stated that the DNA report indicated that DNA taken from hairs located on a mask found near the crime scene matched the defendant's DNA.
The trial court announced that it would hold a Richardson1 hearing on the matter and adjourned the trial for the remainder of the week to give the defense time to depose the State's expert witness, and to give both sides an opportunity to do research with respect to the Richardson issue.
When court reconvened, the defendant moved for a mistrial claiming that the State had committed a prejudicial discovery violation. In response, the prosecutor stated that the delay in disclosing the results from the DNA report was due to the fact that the DNA report had inadvertently been sent to the wrong detective and was temporarily lost. After considering the explanation submitted by the prosecutor, the trial court found that the State's failure to disclose the results of the DNA test was a discovery violation, but was not willful. Further, the trial court found that the violation was substantial, but did not result in prejudice to the defendant. The trial then continued with the DNA evidence being admitted.
When a defendant claims that the State has violated the rules of discovery, the trial court must first determine whether there was a discovery violation. If a violation has occurred, then the court must determine whether the violation was willful or inadvertent, if the violation was trivial or substantial, and whether it "resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant." Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971). Upon appellate review, a trial court's decision should not be disturbed unless it was an abuse of discretion. See Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705 (Fla.2002)
.
Here, the trial court properly found that the State's failure to timely deliver the results of the DNA report to defense counsel constituted a discovery violation. Pursuant to rule 3.220(j), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the State has a continuing duty to disclose evidence held by other state agents, such as law enforcement officers. State v. Coney, 294 So.2d 82, 87 (Fla.1973). The State is charged with constructive possession of all information and evidence in the hands of its agents, including police. Whites v. State, 730 So.2d 762 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Once the trial court found that the State had committed a discovery violation, the trial court properly considered whether the violation was willful or inadvertent. The testimony presented at the hearing supports the trial court's finding that the discovery violation was inadvertent, since the prosecutor explained that she had attempted to obtain the results of the DNA tests for several weeks prior to trial and only received the results after the trial had commenced. The trial court then correctly found that the DNA evidence in this case was substantial. Specifically, the defendant's case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickel v. State
...prejudice in a case where the defense did not learn of the existence of DNA evidence until the middle of trial. In Rojas v. State, 904 So.2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), the defendant was charged with attempted robbery. His defense was to attack the eyewitness identification. Over objection, th......
-
Pickel v. State, No. 4D07-240 (Fla. App. 8/12/2009)
...prejudice in a case where the defense did not learn of the existence of DNA evidence until the middle of trial. In Rojas v. State, 904 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), the defendant was charged with attempted robbery. His defense was to attack the eyewitness identification. Over objection, t......
- State v. Rodriguez, 5D04-1216.
-
Scott v. State
...if the violation was trivial or substantial, and whether it "resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant." Rojas v. State, 904 So.2d 598, 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (quoting Richardson, 246 So.2d at 775 ). Therefore, our first step is to determine whether the State's failure to timely discl......