Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

341 So. 2d 270

Docket Nos. 76-89, 76-355.

Hardison v. State

James David HARDISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 5, 1977.

Rehearing Denied January 27, 1977.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1977-01-05

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 1981

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The trial court has the discretion to determine whether failure to comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220 would result in harm or prejudice to the defendant. However, the trial court may exercise its discretion only after it has made an adequate inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the noncompliance. Smith v. State, 319 So.2d 14 (Fla.1975); Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). The trial court failed to make such an inquiry. Contrary to the state’s assertion, rebuttal witnesses are not exempt from the operation of the discovery rules. Frazier v. State, 336 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1 DCA 1976). (Emphasis supplied).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Grant v. State

Relies on 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · 319 So. 2d 14 - Smith v. State · 336 So. 2d 435 - Frazier v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-01-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant Hardison was found guilty by a jury of possession of a barbiturate and possession of narcotics paraphernalia. The state called a rebuttal witness whose name it had failed to list in response to appellant's demand for discovery. Appellant made a timely objection. The court overruled the objection without making an inquiry into the circumstances. The witness then gave testimony which completely refuted a material aspect of appellant's defense.

¶5The trial court has the discretion to determine whether failure to comply with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220 would result in harm or prejudice to the defendant. However, the trial court may exercise its discretion only after it has made an adequate inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the noncompliance. Smith v. State, 319 So.2d 14 (Fla. 1975); Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971). The trial court failed to make such an inquiry. Contrary to the state's assertion, rebuttal witnesses are not exempt from the operation of the discovery rules. Frazier v. State, 336 So.2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

¶6Since it is the trial court's duty to determine whether the state's noncompliance prejudiced the defendant and it failed to do so, the cause must be reversed.

¶7Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.

¶8BOARDMAN, C.J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.

/341/so2d/270 · .json · Public domain