Sykes v. State
| Citation | 329 So.2d 356 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. X--445,X--445 |
| Parties | George Washington SYKES, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (State). |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Sykes was charged with the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling house with the intent to commit a felony, and with the crime of grand larceny. He was convicted by a jury as charged. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence to the state prison.
The issues raised by his appeal are:
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to exclude a witness and photographs from use at trial where the State failed to disclose them to him after a timely discovery motion was made under Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying several motions for mistrial made by him during the trial.
3. Whether the trial court erred in admitting his fingerprints into evidence over his objection that they were inadmissible because they resulted from an illegal arrest.
Just before the commencement of the trial, it was brought to the trial court's attention that the State was going to use a witness whose name had just been disclosed to Sykes. Sykes moved the court to exclude the witness, because the witness had not been disclosed in response to his discovery. The court rejected the State's explanation for failure to disclose, but when the State informed the court that the witness would be used only to prove chain of custody, the court offered Sykes from one to four hours to interview the witness. Sykes asked for only one hour. The court stated it would listen further to Sykes after the interview if he then felt he would be prejudiced by proceeding to trial. The court heard nothing further from Sykes. The court also pointed out that the witness was disclosed to Sykes on the afternoon before the trial and that he was informed by his attorney on that afternoon that he was ready for trial. The court inquired of the attorney why he did not interview the witness that afternoon, but received no response or explanation. The witness later testified at the trial as to the chain of custody of cards bearing fingerprints and, as an expert, on the limited question of whether the prints were sufficiently clear to bear analysis.
Violation of rule of criminal procedure does not require a reversal of a conviction unless the noncompliance with the rule results in prejudice or harm to the defendant. The rules of criminal procedure are not intended to furnish a defendant with a procedureal device to escape justice. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). In the case before us, although the State did not comply with Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Sykes was given a reasonable opportunity to interview the witness before the commencement of the trial, and was given an opportunity to show prejudice or harm after the interview. His attorney interviewed the witness and at no time thereafter complained that Sykes would be prejudiced or harmed by rpoceeding to trial. The court took every precaution to guarantee him a fair trial.
After the State had introduced photographs of the scene into evidence, Sykes moved to exclude them because the State failed to produce them to him in response to his discovery. The court properly denied the motion, because it was not timely made.
During examination of the arresting officer by the State, the following took place:
'Q. Where or what if anything was he (defendant) arrested in or on?
A. He had a vehicle with him that the said belonged to him, it was white over green Cadillac, 1970 Cadillac.
Q. Yes, sir, and upon arresting the defendant, what if anything . . .'
At this point Sykes objected and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion for a mistrial, but sustained the objection and instructed the jury to disregard that part of the testimony where defendant said the car belonged to him.
During examination of a correctional officer by the State, the following took place:
'Q. Where have you seen him (defendant)?
A. At the Duval County Jail on several occasions.'
Sykes objected and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion for a mistrial, but sustained the objection, and instructed the jury to disregard the witness' answer.
During examination of an evidence technician by bye State, the State offered a card with latent fingerprints on it into evidence. Sykes objected and moved for a mistrial on the ground that the card had his name on the back of it. The court erased the name, denied the motion for a mistrial, sustained the objection, and instructed the jury to disregard the fact that defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...delay litigation or escape justice. Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704, 707 (Fla.1980); Richardson, 246 So.2d at 774; Sykes v. State, 329 So.2d 356, 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). As courts have noted in the past, the purpose of a Richardson inquiry is to ferret out procedural, rather than substant......
-
Smith v. State, BF-34
...to the defendant. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971); Cannon v. State, 317 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Sykes v. State, 329 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). It is within the trial court's discretion to make such a determination, but prior to doing so, the trial court must conduct......
-
Leeman v. State, 50372
...escape justice. Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267, 274 (Fla.1975); Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 774 (Fla.1971); Sykes v. State, 329 So.2d 356, 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Cannon v. State, 317 So.2d 459, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The trial court has discretion in determining whether the no......
-
Fields v. State, 79-858
...then present plight rather than his former prosecution. The trial court properly denied the motion for mistrial. Sykes v. State, 329 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Flowers v. State, 351 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA The other testimony tending to show commission of a collateral criminal activity b......