Jerry Ward v. State of Florida, 165 So. 3d 789

Police executed a search warrant at a house and found over $8,000 in cash (many small bills), drugs (200–400 grams of cocaine), alprazolam, cannabis, and paraphernalia; Ward was observed fleeing and was detained after a taser deployment and taken to a hospital.
State charged Ward with trafficking in cocaine (200–400 g), possession of alprazolam, possession of cannabis, possession of paraphernalia, and resisting an officer.
The State’s pretrial discovery listing identified Detective Melvin Burroughs as a Category A witness but did not designate him as an expert; the discovery exhibit also generically referenced “Listed Police Officers” under a section titled reports or statements of experts.
Defense obtained an in limine order precluding evidence of typical drug-dealer practices; during trial the State sought to qualify Burroughs as an expert on street-level narcotics and dealer modus operandi despite the lack of expert designation.
Defense objected and requested a Richardson hearing; the trial court briefly found no discovery violation and allowed Burroughs to testify that the small-denomination cash was consistent with street-level drug sales.
The Fourth District reversed, holding the State’s vague discovery reference was insufficient and the trial court erred by failing to conduct the required inquiry into the alleged discovery violation; reversal for new trial followed because the State failed to show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether listing an officer as a Category A witness without designating him an expert satisfies Rule 3.220 disclosure	State: generic reference to “Listed Police Officers” in expert section complied with discovery	Ward: failing to designate Burroughs as an expert prevented defense preparation and is a discovery violation	Court: insufficient — designation as an expert is required; the State's reference was wholly insufficient
Whether the trial court’s brief denial of a Richardson hearing and admission of undisclosed expert testimony was harmless error	State: any violation was harmless because testimony was brief and not outcome-determinative	Ward: violation prejudiced trial preparation; defense reasonably could have countered or tried to exclude such testimony	Court: State did not meet its extraordinarily high burden to prove harmlessness; reversal required and new trial ordered

Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (discovery rules prevent trial by surprise; harmless-error standard for discovery breaches and focus on procedural prejudice)
Schopp v. State, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (appellate harmless-error standard for discovery violations—must be beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not prejudiced)
Thomas v. State, 63 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (failure to list witness as an expert despite Category A listing is a discovery violation; trial court must inquire whether violation was willful, substantial, and prejudicial)
Kipp v. State, 128 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (applying amended Rule 3.220 and holding the State must indicate a witness will testify as an expert)
Kearse v. State, 770 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2000) (Rule 3.220 imposes reciprocal obligations, including listing of expert witnesses)