State v. Crawford
Decision Date | 26 January 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 41043,41043 |
Citation | 257 So.2d 898 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Willie James CRAWFORD, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender and Bartley K. Vickers, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (State v. Crawford, Fla.App., 245 So.2d 893), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this Court (Anderson v. State, Fla., 241 So.2d 390), and a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District (State v. Gillespie, Fla.App., 227 So.2d 550), on the same point of law. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4, F.S.A.
The respondent's request for oral argument is denied. See Florida Appellate Rule 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A.
Respondent, defendant below, charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, filed a 'Motion for Statement of Particulars, Production of Confessions or Statements and to Compel the Disclosure of All Evidence to the Defendant.' Among other things, he requested
'. . . the criminal records, F.B.I. records, or any list or summary reflecting the criminal records, Of all persons the State of Florida intends to call at trial'
and
'. . . the police records and F.B.I. records of the defendant and the victim in this cause.'
The trial court granted these portions of the motion. On petition for rehearing, the State alleged that it did not have in its possession the material mentioned or referred to and contended that it would be unreasonable to impose upon the State the duty to obtain and produce such records for the defendant. The petition for rehearing was denied.
Pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 924.07(8), F.S.A., the State filed a notice of appeal seeking a review of this order. Upon appeal the order of the trial judge was affirmed and this petition for writ of certiorari resulted.
In State v. Gillespie, Supra, the Court said:
Further, in Anderson v. State, Supra, this Court said:
'In State v. Gillespie, 227 So.2d 550 (Fla.App.2d, 1969), the Court noted that under the decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1968), and Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir., 1968), denial of timely discovery of evidence 'favorable' to the accused which is otherwise unavailable to him may affect the fairness of the trial to such an extent that due process is denied. The Court then discussed what was meant by 'favorable evidence' as used in the Brady case. It said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duest v. State
...criminal history information of State witnesses (issue 2), see Medina v. State, 466 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Fla.1985); State v. Crawford, 257 So.2d 898, 901 (Fla. 1972); (2) in sustaining the State's objection to a question of defense expert witness Dr. Fleming as to whether she found any mitigat......
-
Couser v. State
...a defendant's case or to furnish him with favorable evidence which is as easily accessible to him as to the State. State v. Crawford, Fla., 257 So.2d 898, 899 (1972). Where defense counsel has been insufficiently diligent in examining that which is available to him before the time for jury ......
-
Rogers v. State
...admissible substantive or impeachment evidence. See Martinez v. Wainwright, 621 F.2d 184, 188 (5th Cir.1980) (citing State v. Crawford, 257 So.2d 898, 900-01 (Fla.1972)). While the actual police reports may not be admitted as substantive evidence, they can still serve as the basis for Roger......
-
State v. Coney, Q--477
...in the manner aforesaid. The State contends that the order in question goes beyond the prosecutor's duty as outlined in State v. Crawford, 257 So.2d 898 (Fla.). Following our per curiam affirmance of the trial court's order in the Crawford case, supra, the Supreme Court in an opinion report......