Daniel Scott v. State
230 So. 3d 613
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- AT&T store robbery: two masked men stole electronics and cash; getaway in a black Kia; officers pursued and stopped the vehicle; two suspects (Scott and Bryant) were arrested and identified by victims and officers.
- Items stolen were recovered in trash bags inside the car; Scott’s fingerprints were found on sunglasses and the trash bags; Bryant’s prints matched eleven latent prints; 77 latent prints remained unmatched.
- Before trial, Bryant pleaded guilty; Scott listed Bryant as a defense witness who would testify that Lester Register, not Scott, committed the robbery.
- The State’s fingerprint analyst, Marco Palacio, produced a written report matching Scott and Bryant to certain latents; four days before trial the prosecutor asked Palacio to compare Register’s prints to latent prints; on day two of trial Palacio orally told the prosecutor he had compared 20 previously unmatched prints and found no match to Register.
- Palacio testified for the State in rebuttal about the non-match; defense moved for mistrial claiming a discovery violation for nondisclosure of Palacio’s oral, unrecorded finding; the trial court held a Richardson hearing, found a technical but not willful violation and no prejudice, and denied mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Scott's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State committed a discovery violation by not disclosing Palacio’s oral, unrecorded finding that Register’s prints did not match 20 latents, warranting mistrial | Failure to disclose materially prejudiced Scott and undermined his third‑party defense (Register) | Oral, unrecorded expert statements are not discoverable under rule 3.220; nondisclosure was inadvertent/harmless | No discovery violation under Watson/McFadden; even if violation, it was harmless and no mistrial was required |
| Whether a minor addition to a standard jury instruction was fundamental error | The instruction change constituted fundamental error | No reversible error | Affirmed (issue not discussed further) |
| Whether cumulative errors require reversal | Trial errors cumulatively prejudiced Scott | No cumulative error | Affirmed (issue not discussed further) |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. State, 651 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1994) (rule 3.220 statement limited to written or contemporaneously recorded oral statements)
- State v. McFadden, 50 So. 3d 1131 (Fla. 2010) (rule 3.220 does not require disclosure of unrecorded oral statements)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (procedure for addressing alleged discovery violations)
- Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (prejudice test: reasonable possibility discovery violation materially hindered trial preparation or strategy)
- Consalvo v. State, 697 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1996) (discovery of additional fingerprint analysis may be harmless where many latents remain unidentified)