Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 273

On July 06 2013 02:44 Kaitlin wrote:
Ok, attorneys, what is a Richardson hearing ?

XXXIX. RICHARDSON HEARING REQUIREMENTS

A. When a discovery violation is brought to the attention of the trial court, the court must conduct a hearing as to the circumstances of the violation and its potential prejudice to the defendant. Carter v. State, 665 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

B. When it has been alleged that the state has committed a discovery violation, the trial court pursuant to Richardson, and its progeny, has a duty to first make an adequate inquiry into all of the surrounding circumstances concerning the violation. Tarrant v. State, 668 So.2d 223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

C. A trial court's failure to hod an adequate Richardson inquiry may be grounds for a new trial. Carter v. State, 665 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

D. The "guts" of a Richardson hearing:

The Richardson Inquiry follows:

1. Was there a discovery violation?

2. Was the violation willful or inadvertent?

3. Was the violation trivial or substantial?

4. What effect did the violation have on the ability of the other side to prepare for trial?

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

E. The requirement to hold a Richardson hearing reinforces the discovery rules and encourages full compliance. It would be counterproductive to disregard the cause of a discovery violation. Donahue v. State, 464 So.2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

F. "The purpose of a Richardson inquiry it so ferret out procedural, rather than substantive, prejudice. In deciding whether this type of prejudice exists in a given case, a trial judge must be cognizant of two separate but interrelated aspects. First, the trial judge must decide whether the discovery violation prevented the defendant from properly preparing for trial.... The second aspect of procedural prejudice deals with the proper sanction to invoke for a discovery violation." State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995).

G. A trial court's failure to conduct a proper Richardson hearing does not constitute per se reversible error. However, the failure to make a full Richardson inquiry may be deemed harmless only where the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not procedurally prejudiced by the violation. State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995).