Ibarra v. State
56 So. 3d 70
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Ibarra was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and challenges the judgment and sentences.
- On appeal, he asserts two grounds but the court addresses only the Richardson hearing issue for a discovery violation.
- During trial, after Ibarra testified, the State sought to call a detective to discuss an oral statement by Ibarra contrary to his trial testimony.
- The State had not disclosed the content of the statement as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1)(C).
- Defense objected and noted the nondisclosure; Ibarra argued a Richardson hearing was required to assess the violation and prejudice.
- The trial court did not conduct a Richardson hearing, and the State failed to prove lack of prejudice; the matter is reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Richardson hearing was required for undisclosed impeachment evidence | Ibarra argues discovery violation requiring Richardson hearing | State contends hearing unnecessary because testimony would be impeachment | Reversal and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Reese v. State, 694 So.2d 678 (Fla. 1997) (necessity of Richardson hearing for undisclosed oral statements)
- Portner v. State, 802 So.2d 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (impeachment material is discoverable; no impeachment exception to Richardson rule)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (harmless error standard for failure to conduct Richardson hearing)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (foundation for Richardson hearing requirements)