Skip to main content

Comer v. State

Citations

  • 730 So. 2d 769
  • 1999 WL 152659

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the trial court’s exclusion of the defendant’s sole witness without conducting a Richardson hearing was error, since the issue of prejudice to the State was not addressed by the court
  • reversing where the trial court precluded a late-listed defense witness from testifying without conducting a Richardson hearing or considering less severe sanctions
  • “Clearly, the Richardson requirements apply also where the defense committed the discovery violation.” (citing Brazell v. State, 570 So.2d 919, 921 (Fla.1990))
  • “In assessing procedural prejudice, the trial court must determine, first, whether the discovery violation precluded the aggrieved party from adequately preparing for trial, and second, what is the proper sanction to invoke for the discovery violation.”
  • “ ‘In a criminal ease, the exclusion of a defense witness for a discovery violation implicates a defendant’s sixth amendment right to present witnesses as well as the fundamental right to due process.’ M.N. v. State, 724 So.2d 122[, 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Browning

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.