Yanetta v. State
| Decision Date | 23 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-182,75-182 |
| Citation | 320 So.2d 23 |
| Parties | Robert Anthony YANETTA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carling Stedman, Stephen L. Raskin, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Lance R. Stelzer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Robert Yanetta raises two issues on appeal from his conviction following a jury trial and sentence to five years in the state penitentiary on the charge of aggravated battery.
He claims as error that the prosecutor made several comments in closing argument which were prejudicial and grounds for a mistrial. The objection by Yanetta's attorney was overruled and the motion for mistrial denied. From reading the record, including closing argument, we are of the opinion that the comments by the prosecutor were not so highly prejudicial as to require reversal. See Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1974, 305 So.2d 50, 52 and cases cited therein.
As his second point, Yanetta contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for production of the victim's FBI report sheet. The record reflects that the motion was made for the first time during trial, and that the court did not deny the request, but rather that the report sheet was found to be unavailable. A defendant is properly allowed discovery as to the criminal records of the State's witnesses to the extent that the information is in the actual or constructive possession of the State, not limited to that in the physical possession of the State Attorney's office, and including data obtainable from the FBI. State v. Coney, Fla.1973, 294 So.2d 82, 86, State v. Crawford Fla.1972, 257 So.2d 898. However, a defendant should not be permitted to so employ the pretrial discovery procedures as to require the State Attorney to disclose to him information or documents which by the exercise of due diligence, are readily available to him by subpoena or deposition. State v. Coney, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 550, 553. Therefore, since demand for the FBI report sheet was not timely made, and since it was not available when it was demanded, no error has been shown.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bunch v. State
...Cir.1973), holding the United States Attorney suppressed evidence in the possession of the Post Office Department, and Yanetta v. State, 320 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla.Ct.App.1975), holding defendant entitled to discovery of information not just in the physical possession of the State but also obtai......
-
Smith v. State, 76491.
...is required to produce for discovery the criminal records of any witness the prosecution intends to call at trial. Yanetta v. State, 320 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Comer v. State, 318 So.2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The State has no duty, however, "to actively assist the defense in......
-
Fields v. State, 79-858
...above, we agree with the trial court that the request came too late. Cooper v. State, 356 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Yanetta v. State, 320 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Wilcox v. State, 299 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Interrelated to the defendant's challenge to the denial of discovery o......
-
Cooper v. State, 76-2304
...the trial court will not be held in error for refusing to stop the trial and secure the statement for examination. See Yanetta v. State, 320 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Wilcox v. State, 299 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and Kelsey v. State, 267 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). In the present ......