ST JUSTE v. STATE (2022)

Ricardo Marven St. Juste appeals his conviction for simple assault, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by determining, after conducting a Richardson ¹ hearing, that the State had not committed a discovery violation.² The grounds for the purported discovery violation are St. Juste's claims that (i) the victim's trial testimony materially differed from the victim's recorded, sworn statement to the police, and (ii) the State failed to disclose to St. Juste that the victim was not a confidential informant.

With respect to the first claim, as reflected in the State's answer brief – in which the State presents a side-by-side comparison between the victim's trial testimony and the victim's recorded, sworn statement – it is readily apparent that the victim's trial testimony was not inconsistent with the victim's recorded statement. As to the second claim, prior to trial, the State submitted discovery to St. Juste stating “[t]here is no material or information which has been provided by a confidential informant.”

On this record, we are unable to conclude that the State committed any discovery violation, much less that the trial court abused its discretion ³ by coming to the same conclusion.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

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

2.   See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b).

3.   Pender v. State, 700 So. 2d 664, 667 (Fla. 1997) (“[W]here a trial court rules that no discovery violation occurred, the reviewing court must first determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.”).

PER CURIAM.