McFadden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 15, 2009

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2009-07-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2010

1 state decisions

Relies on 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · Portner v. State · 613 So. 2d 434 - Elledge v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HAZOURI, J.,

¶1concurring specially.

¶2I concur and write to note that the error here was compounded by the failure of the trial judge to conduct a Richardson3 hearing. When McFadden’s counsel objected and asserted a discovery violation, the trial judge overruled the objection because he concluded the detective’s testimony was rebuttal and, therefore, not subject to a discovery violation. “There is neither a rebuttal nor impeachment exception to the Richardson rule.” Elledge v. State, 613 So.2d 434, 436 (Fla.1993); see also Portner v. State, 802 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Elledge, 613 So.2d at 436).

¶3. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971).