Joel Jules v. State of Florida
178 So. 3d 475
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant charged with two counts of robbery with a firearm and two counts of aggravated assault (one on an officer, one with a firearm) after a parking-lot robbery and a confrontation in which an officer shot the defendant.
- Crime Identification Technician (CIT) initially testified he recovered no money; later indicated property receipt showed bills taken from defendant’s jeans pocket and the money was introduced mid-trial.
- Defense argued a Richardson discovery violation and moved for mistrial, claiming surprise and prejudice because opening statement relied on no money being recovered.
- State asserted it had disclosed CIT lab reports and turned over property receipts in discovery; any failure to highlight the money was inadvertent.
- Trial court reviewed discovery, found the property receipt had been produced, denied Richardson violation and mistrial, offered broad latitude to cross-examine the CIT, and the jury convicted on two robbery counts and a lesser assault; court imposed concurrent life sentences on robberies.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State committed a Richardson discovery violation by not informing defense before trial that money recovered from defendant’s pocket existed | Trial counsel was ambushed; opening statement relied on no money recovered; prejudice from surprise evidence | Property receipts and CIT reports were disclosed in discovery; any nondisclosure was inadvertent; exclusion would be extreme | No Richardson violation; trial court did not abuse discretion in finding discovery adequate and denying mistrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (establishes procedure for addressing discovery violations)
- Conde v. State, 860 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 2003) (standard of review for Richardson hearings: abuse of discretion)
- Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979) (purpose of discovery rules: prevent surprise and facilitate truthful fact-finding)
- Cuciak v. State, 410 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1982) (trial court should conduct Richardson inquiry when discovery rules are violated)
- Tomengo v. State, 864 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (abuse of discretion judged by reasonableness)
- Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (harmless-error standard for discovery violations)
- Lasiak v. State, 966 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (affirming harmlessness of certain discovery errors)