LOISELL v. STATE (1997)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

Marvin J. LOISELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-0859.

Decided: December 31, 1997

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Karen E. Ehrlich, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

We reverse appellant's conviction and remand for new trial.

Over objection by appellant, his oral statement to a detective was introduced into evidence, not withstanding the state's failure to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1)(C).

The failure to conduct a Richardson hearing cannot be said to be harmless error because of the reasonable possibility of a difference in trial preparation or strategy. State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995). Here, it is reasonably possible that the change in appellant's strategy between opening statement and closing argument was caused by the admission of the undiscovered statement.

But for the above error, we would affirm. We find no error in the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal. State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989). Nor do we believe it was error to refuse to instruct the jury as appellant requested.

PER CURIAM.

STONE, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network