Thomas v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7186
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Thomas appeals a conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and six-year sentence.
- The appeal centers on a discovery violation involving Detective Tianga, who testified as an expert without proper expert listing.
- Tianga was originally listed only as a Category A witness; the State later tendered him as an expert in street level narcotics.
- Defense objected during direct examination; the court conducted a Richardson inquiry and allowed Tianga to testify.
- The trial court did not clearly determine whether the violation was willful or inadvertent, or the prejudice to Thomas.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the Richardson inquiry inadequate and the violation not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Richardson inquiry adequate? | Thomas argues the inquiry failed to assess willfulness, magnitude, and prejudice. | Thomas contends the court did not properly determine whether a discovery violation occurred. | No; the inquiry was inadequate and violated Richardson. |
| Was the discovery violation preserved for appeal? | Thomas preserved the issue by objecting on discovery grounds during trial. | The State contends preservation was lacking due to timing and remedy. | Yes; preservation occurred. |
| Did remedy or exhaustion of objections cure the error? | Defense did not consent to the remedy as a cure for the violation. | The defense accepted the remedy, assuming no violation. | Remedy did not cure the violation; error persisted. |
| Does listing a witness as Category A satisfy expert disclosure rules? | Simply listing as Category A is insufficient to qualify as expert testimony. | The amended rule could authorize expert designation under certain conditions. | Not satisfied here; requires Richardson hearing. |
| Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | The State bears burden to show lack of prejudice and adequate Richardson inquiry. | If prejudice is minimal, harmless error applies. | The error was not harmless due to inadequate inquiry and prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (establishes Richardson inquiry requirements)
- State v. Evans, 770 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2000) (inadequate inquiry hazardous to defendant's rights)
- Barrett v. State, 649 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1994) (trial court discretion limited by need for adequate inquiry)
- Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (harmless error standard for discovery violations focuses on prejudice to trial preparation)
- Schopp v. State, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (materially different trial preparation if violation occurred)
- Jones v. State, 32 So.3d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (no magic words required; discovery request unmet triggers Richardson inquiry)
- Pickel v. State, 32 So.3d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (preservation when raised on first day of trial)
- Major v. State, 979 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (preservation of discovery issue guidance)
- Landry v. State, 931 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Richardson inquiry must flesh out circumstances)
- Henry v. State, 42 So.3d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (listing as Category A with expert qualification implications)