Supreme Court of Florida

In a prosecution of defendant for armed robbery-related offenses, the Fourth District's conclusion that the trial court should have conducted a Richardson hearing to determine the effect of the state's discovery violation in granting a new trial is quashed and remanded as there was no discovery violation in this case as, pursuant to Evans, rule 3.220(b)(1)(B) does not apply to an oral, unrecorded witness statement if that statement does not materially change a prior recorded statement previously provided to the defendant by the state, and as such, there was no need for the trial court to conduct a Richardson hearing.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/07/2010
• Published 10/07/2010

Judges

• POLSTON

Court

• Supreme Court of Florida

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Bill McCollum, Carey Haughwout