State v. Farley, 5D01-473.
| Decision Date | 25 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D01-473.,5D01-473. |
| Citation | 788 So.2d 338 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Matthew D. FARLEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Belle B. Schumann, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.
Francis V. Iennaco of LeBlanc & Iennaco, Orlando, for Respondent.
The State seeks certiorari review of a trial court order excluding a witness from testifying at trial because the witness failed to attend a scheduled deposition. Because lesser sanctions had not been attempted or shown to be futile in securing the witness' attendance at deposition, we hold that striking the witness was improper and grant the writ.
Matthew Farley was charged by information with delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a place of worship in violation of section 893.13(1)(e)(1), Florida Statutes (1998) and possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.03(2)(a)(4), Florida Statutes (1998). The State alleged that Farley sold cocaine to a confidential informant working with the Winter Park Police Department. Farley was arrested fourteen months after the alleged crime.
Through counsel, Farley sought discovery and in response, the State provided a witness list that included the unnamed confidential informant as a category A witness pursuant to rule 3.220(b)(1)(a)(i) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The confidential informant's address was given as "in care of" the lead detective at the Winter Park Police Department. Because Farley's attorney wished to depose the confidential informant, he had a subpoena served on the informant "in care of" the lead detective at the Winter Park Police Department, the address provided to him by the State. The confidential informant failed to appear at the deposition and the next day, Farley's attorney filed a motion seeking to exclude the witness at trial. Apparently realizing the error in its decision not to produce the informant at deposition, the State immediately disclosed the informant's identity and offered to produce the witness at another deposition. Apparently, the offer was declined.1
Following a hearing on Farley's motion and pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), the trial court found a willful discovery violation and entered an order prohibiting the witness from testifying at trial. This was error. When a discovery violation is alleged, the trial court must determine if the moving party has suffered procedural, rather than substantive, prejudice.2 The trial court must first determine if a discovery violation prevented the moving party from properly preparing for trial. If it is determined that the discovery violation did hinder the moving party's trial preparation, the trial court must consider the nature of the violation in fixing an appropriate sanction. Wilcox v. State, 367 So.2d 1020, 1023 (Fla.1979).
In this case, Farley argued that he would "suffer great prejudice if the State were allowed to call the informant without previous disclosure." The precise nature of the prejudice was not disclosed. At the hearing on his motion, Farley argued that he was prejudiced due to the delay between the occurrence of the alleged offense and his arrest. We find that puzzling because although there was a delay of fourteen months between the occurrence of the alleged offense and Farley's arrest, that delay is wholly unrelated to the confidential informant's failure to appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gillis, 3D03-1546.
...when other reasonable alternatives are available. Taylor v. State, 643 So.2d 1122, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also State v. Farley, 788 So.2d 338, 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (before excluding testimony, the court must consider less alternative sanctions). The civil cases upon which the major......
-
State v. Davis, 2D03-731.
...a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Id.; State v. Hill, 532 So.2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Farley, 788 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); State v. Gorrio, 726 So.2d 832, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Gonzalez, 695 So.2d 1290, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). ......
-
Ward v. State
...for trial." State v. Rolack , 104 So.3d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citing McDuffie , 970 So.2d at 321 ; State v. Farley , 788 So.2d 338, 339 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ). Importantly, a defendant has a constitutional due process right to call witnesses. Dawson v. State , 20 So.3d 1016, 10......
-
State v. Rolack
...the severe sanction of witness exclusion without first considering the availability of less severe sanctions. See State v. Farley, 788 So.2d 338, 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The existence of prejudice is the sine qua non for relief from a discovery violation. State v. Rodriguez, 907 So.2d 564,......