Guillen v. State, 189 So. 3d 1004

In 2012 the defendant, driving intoxicated and speeding in a busway, struck a minivan; the passenger Kaely Camacho later died. The defendant fled and was arrested.
He was charged with DUI manslaughter with failure to render aid, vehicular homicide with failure to render aid, and leaving the scene of a crash involving death; he pled not guilty.
Ten days before trial a new prosecutor listed William Wright as a potential expert; State initially said it might not call him. The State later sought a continuance; the court denied it.
After the State deposed the defense expert (Moss) and learned Moss had revised his speed/drag-factor calculations, the State added Wright and the defense deposed Wright the day before trial.
Defense moved to preclude Wright as a late-disclosed expert and objected to several gruesome photographs of the victim; the trial court held a Richardson hearing, denied exclusion, allowed the photos, and reset opening statements to allow defense preparation.
Jury convicted on all counts (trial court later vacated all but the DUI-manslaughter conviction); defendant appealed denial of continuance, denial of preclusion of Wright, admission of photos, and denial of new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	State: denial proper; no undue prejudice	Guillen: lacked time to prepare to rebut Wright, esp. drag-factor methodology	Not preserved for appeal (defense said ready); even if preserved, no abuse—no undue prejudice because defendant deposed Wright and the issue was cumulative
Preclusion of late-listed expert (Wright)	State: late listing was inadvertent/necessitated by Moss’s revised opinions; Richardson hearing cured any prejudice	Guillen: late disclosure prejudiced trial prep and warranted exclusion	No abuse of discretion—Richardson factors show no willful/substantial prejudice; prejudice cured by deposition and accommodations
Admission of photographic evidence	State: photos probative of injury severity and corroborate speed/causation	Guillen: photos were unfairly prejudicial and graphic	No abuse of discretion—probative value outweighed prejudicial effect
Denial of new trial	State: trial court acted within discretion	Guillen: errors warranted new trial	Affirmed; defendant’s new-trial arguments lacked merit

McCray v. State, 369 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (failure to renew continuance at trial waives issue)
Riggins v. State, 283 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (motion for continuance waived when not renewed at trial)
Bouie v. State, 559 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1990) (appellate review of continuance denial is for abuse of discretion)
Randolph v. State, 853 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2003) (continuance reversals require showing of undue prejudice)
Diaz v. State, 132 So. 3d 93 (Fla. 2013) (no abuse where defendant previously aware of substance of expert testimony)
Cooper v. State, 336 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1976) (denial of continuance not an abuse when depositions allowed before testimony)
Delhall v. State, 95 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 2012) (appellate review of Richardson inquiry limited to whether procedure and resulting actions were proper)
State v. Evans, 770 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2000) (Richardson three-factor inquiry for discovery violations)
Schopp v. State, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (procedural prejudice defined by reasonable possibility trial prep/strategy would differ)
Del Gaudio v. State, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (discovery prejudice cured when defendant is provided the material and can use it)
Armstrong v. State, 73 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 2011) (photographic evidence admitted based on probative value versus prejudicial effect)
Harris v. State, 843 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2003) (gruesome photos not automatically inadmissible)