Salamone v. State
| Decision Date | 18 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--840,69--840 |
| Citation | 247 So.2d 780 |
| Parties | John Joseph SALAMONE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant was found and adjudged guilty of robbery on trial without a jury before the criminal court of record of Dade County. Appealing therefrom he contends the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, and that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the testimony of three witnesses presented by the state who had not been disclosed in advance as required under Rule 1.220(e) CrPR, 33 F.S.A.
Under the rule, pursuant to request of defendant the prosecution was required to furnish to the defendant a list of all witnesses known to the prosecuting attorney to have information which may be relevant to the offense charged, and to any defense of the person charged with respect thereto. The rule required that such list be furnished by the prosecuting attorney within five days after receipt by him of the defendant's offer to furnish to the prosecuting attorney his list of prospective witnesses with their addresses.
During the trial the state presented three witnesses that had not been so listed, who testified with reference to a material issue in the trial, relating to the defendant's mental condition bearing on his capacity to form an intent which was a material element of the offense.
In the recent case of Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 771 in referring to failure of the state to comply with this rule, the Supreme Court said: '(W)e hold that the violation of a rule of procedure prescribed by this court does not call for reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that non-compliance with the rule resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant.' Further in that case the Court said: 'The trial court has discretion to determine whether the non-compliance would result in harm or prejudice to the defendant, but the court's discretion can be properly exercised only after the court has made an adequate inquiry into all of the surrounding circumstances.' With reference to the latter feature the Supreme Court quoted with approval certain procedures or guide lines set out in Ramirez v. State, Fla.App.197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcox v. State
...3d DCA 1973); Carnivale v. State, 271 So.2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Garcia v. State, 268 So.2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Salamone v. State, 247 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). The state does not contest any of the above well-settled principles of criminal discovery law. Nor does the state deny ......
-
Williams v. State
...resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant.'" (quoting Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 774 (Fla.1971))); Salamone v. State, 247 So.2d 780, 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (same). The specter of the penalty of death distinguishes capital cases from all others. The jury considers the appropria......
-
Smith v. State
...Note 3.10 Ramirez v. State, supra, see Note 8.11 Id. at 746.12 Richardson v. State, supra, see Note 2 at pp. 774--775.13 Salamone v. State, 247 So.2d 780 (Fla.App.1971); Carnivale v. State, 271 So.2d 793 (Fla.App.1973), Cert. den., Fla., 277 So.2d 534; Cf. Garcia v. State, 268 So.2d 575 (Fl......
-
Jefferies v. State, 72--1019
...the rule stated in Richardson v. State, Fla.1971, 246 So.2d 771; Angell v. State, Fla. App.1971, 254 So.2d 27; and Salamone v. State, Fla.App.1971, 247 So.2d 780. Appellant's third point is an appellate afterthought. The codefendant, John Gallagher, agreed to become a State's witness on the......