Gage v. State
147 So. 3d 1020
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gage was convicted of battery and sexual battery and sentenced to forty years in prison.
- The trial court allowed the State to impeach Gage and his mother with a recorded statement that had not been disclosed to the defense.
- No Richardson hearing was conducted to determine whether the nondisclosure violated discovery rules and whether it prejudiced the defense.
- Defense objected, arguing the nondisclosure violated discovery and was a material Richardson violation that could have altered trial strategy.
- Discovery rules aim to prevent surprise or trial by ambush, and prejudice is required to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt when a Richardson violation occurs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Richardson hearing was required and whether the nondisclosure prejudiced the defense | Gage | State | Remanded for new trial; prejudice not shown beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the undisclosed recorded statement was admissible to impeach | Gage | State | Remand for new trial; discovery violation prejudiced defense function |
| Whether improper sentencing factors tainted the sentence | Gage | State | Moot on remand; improper factors noted, but new trial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) ( Richardson hearing required for discovery violations)
- Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (discovery rules prevent surprise; harmless error standard for Richardson)
- Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981) (trial by ambush concerns in discovery issues)
- Ibarra v. State, 56 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (prejudice and reasonable doubt standard for discovery violations)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (framework for prejudice from discovery violations)
- Moorer v. State, 133 So. 3d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (discovery prejudice analysis in Florida appellate decisions)
- Lynch v. State, 925 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (assessing impact of undisclosed information on trial strategy)
- Lewis v. State, 22 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (consideration of undisclosed information on defense)
- Lasiak v. State, 966 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (no procedural prejudice when no material strategy change)
- Brown v. State, 27 So. 3d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reliance on improper sentencing factors violates due process)
- Ritter v. State, 885 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (due process concerns with improper sentencing factors)
- Smith v. State, 62 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (improper reliance on purported trial innocence factors)
- Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (due process concerns with trial conduct and sentencing)