Nicole Cheri Parker v. State of Florida
225 So. 3d 1008
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nicole Parker was convicted of aggravated battery with great bodily harm and with a weapon for cutting her estranged husband Wade Parker’s throat during an altercation at Candice Day’s residence.
- Eyewitness testimony conflicted as to who committed the stabbing; Candice Day’s trial testimony placed Nicole with a knife entering and re-entering her bedroom and claimed Nicole said, “Candice, I swear to God I didn’t cut [Wade].”
- Day’s trial testimony materially differed from her prior sworn statement to police, which did not mention Nicole taking a knife or making the quoted statement.
- The State knew Day’s expected trial testimony would differ from her earlier statement but did not disclose that change to defense counsel before trial.
- Defense counsel timely objected, arguing a discovery violation; the trial court briefly addressed the issue, found no discovery violation (treating the testimony as supplementation), and did not complete the full Richardson inquiry.
- The First DCA held the State committed a discovery violation, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a complete Richardson hearing, and reversed and remanded for a new trial; two other trial rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s failure to disclose that Day’s trial testimony would differ from her prior statement constituted a discovery violation triggering a Richardson inquiry | Parker: State’s nondisclosure of the changed testimony prejudiced trial preparation; constitutes a discovery violation requiring inquiry and possible sanctions | State: Day merely supplemented prior statement; no discovery violation so no further inquiry or sanctions necessary | Court: State committed a discovery violation; trial court abused discretion by not completing Richardson analysis; reversal and new trial required |
| Whether the Richardson violation was harmless error | Parker: Violation likely prejudiced defense because Day uniquely placed Nicole with the knife before the incident; trial strategy would likely differ if disclosed | State: Error, if any, harmless given other testimony linking Nicole to knife after contact | Court: Could not say beyond a reasonable doubt the defense was not procedurally prejudiced; error not harmless |
| Admissibility of custodial interrogation video (raised but not central to reversal) | Parker: Video admission was erroneous/fundamental error | State: Admission proper | Court: Affirmed admission; no fundamental error |
| Denial of motion for judgment of acquittal (raised but not central to reversal) | Parker: Insufficient evidence for conviction | State: Sufficient evidence supported conviction | Court: Affirmed denial; evidence sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (establishes discovery-hearing framework)
- State v. Evans, 770 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2000) (failure to disclose changed witness testimony is a discovery violation)
- Schopp v. State, 653 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (harmless-error standard for Richardson violations)
- Pender v. State, 700 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1997) (appellate review standard for trial court discovery rulings)
- C.D.B. v. State, 662 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (Richardson violations subject to harmless error analysis)
- Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (discusses Schopp’s cautious approach to harmlessness findings)
- Johnson v. State, 25 So. 3d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (describing Richardson inquiry steps)
- Kiser v. State, 921 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (applying Schopp standard)