Wagner v. State
208 So. 3d 1229
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Undercover officers observed Jason Wagner driving rapidly, failing to stop at intersections, and stopped his vehicle; officer smelled marijuana and saw a baggie at Wagner’s waistband containing MDMA, marijuana, and cocaine.
- Wagner was arrested and charged with trafficking MDMA and possession with intent to sell other drugs; he defended that the drugs belonged to a female passenger.
- During cross-examination Detective Crespo admitted errors in his arrest affidavit and confirmed he had drafted an offense incident report (OIR) that the State had not produced despite defense requests.
- Defense counsel raised the missing OIR mid-trial; the trial court queried why the defense had not earlier raised the issue and asked defense to show prejudice, then ordered the trial to proceed without conducting a Richardson hearing.
- Wagner was convicted of lesser counts (simple possession) and sentenced; on appeal the court found the trial court erred by failing to conduct a proper Richardson inquiry and reversed for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a Richardson hearing after disclosure of a missing OIR | State: no substantial prejudice; trial should proceed without OIR | Wagner: failure to produce OIR deprived defense of impeachment material and strategy, causing prejudice | Reversed — court must hold Richardson hearing to examine circumstances and prejudice; here failure required reversal and new trial |
| Who bears burden to show prejudice from discovery violation | State: trial court implied defense must show prejudice | Wagner: State must show lack of prejudice; burden on State | Held: burden is on State to demonstrate harmlessness; trial court wrongly shifted burden to defense |
| Whether the State’s lack of knowledge about the OIR’s existence excuses nondisclosure | State: unawareness should mitigate error | Wagner: State’s duty to disclose exists regardless of claimed unawareness | Held: State’s claimed unawareness does not relieve disclosure duty; court must inquire into willfulness and prejudice |
| Whether the nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | State: omission harmless; no prejudice to defense | Wagner: timely OIR would have aided impeachment and altered defense strategy | Held: record does not establish harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971) (requires court inquiry into discovery violations and prejudice)
- Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) (prejudice standard for discovery violations)
- McDuffie v. State, 970 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2007) (procedures for addressing discovery violations)
- Cliff Berry, Inc. v. State, 116 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (discussing Richardson hearing obligations)
- Casica v. State, 24 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (State bears burden to show lack of prejudice)
- Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (Richardson hearing principles)
- Kipp v. State, 128 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (noting high burden on State to show harmlessness)