Holman v. State

17 Citing cases

  1. Kilpatrick v. State

    376 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1979)   Cited 38 times
    In Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1979), the Florida Supreme Court recognized that rule 3.220 imposes a continuing mandatory duty on the prosecution to disclose the specific, relevant information requested.

    A number of decisions rendered by appellate courts of this state have recognized certain circumstances as being relevant to the question of whether discovery noncompliance has caused actual prejudice. When the undisclosed witness is one which the defense was in fact aware of, it is recognized that the appearance of the witness' name on a list is unlikely to add significantly to the ability of the defense to prepare for trial. See, e.g. Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mobley v. State, 327 So.2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Ramirez v. State, 241 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); Buttler v. State, 238 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Affording the defense an opportunity to interview the witness before he testifies may render the noncompliance harmless.

  2. James v. State

    453 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1984)   Cited 61 times
    Approving the reconvening of a jury a week after discharge to poll the jury as to its verdict recommending the death penalty

    Prejudice is the key question in any alleged discovery violation. Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). As his second point on appeal James claims that the trial court erred in allowing an expert to use parole reports written by James as known examples of his handwriting.

  3. Francois v. State

    137 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    A trial court is vested with broad discretion when ruling on a motion for a continuance. Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). This discretion extends to motions requesting a continuancefor the purpose of allowing substitution of new counsel.

  4. Williams v. State

    763 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, we cannot conclude that the denial of the motion for continuance constituted a palpable abuse of judicial discretion and therefore affirm the appellant's conviction. See Geralds v. State, 674 So.2d 96, 99 (Fla. 1996) (denial of a motion for continuance should not be reversed unless the record clearly and affirmatively shows that there has been a palpable abuse of discretion; see also Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024, 1028 (Fla. 1981) (same); Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832, 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) (same). Affirmed.

  5. Tullis v. State

    601 So. 2d 643 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

    PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Corbett v. State, 602 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 1992); Bouie v. State, 559 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1990); Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 981 (Fla. 1978).

  6. Fernandez-Carballo v. State

    590 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    No abuse of discretion is shown in such rulings. Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024, 1028 (Fla. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 2916, 73 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1982); Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 981 (Fla. 1978). Moreover, there is no merit to the defendant's argument that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a discovery deposition of the said police officer when the defense motions for a continuance and mistrial were denied. The defendant, not the state, offered such deposition in evidence and consequently any claimed error here was entirely invited.

  7. Jones v. State

    477 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    See Marshall v. State, 413 So.2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), quashed in part on other grounds, 445 So.2d 355 (Fla. 1984). As to the second point, the denial of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Echols v. State, 10 F.L.W. 526 (Fla. Sept. 19, 1985); Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832, 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 981 (Fla. 1978). Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for continuance, we affirm.

  8. Wilkerson v. State

    461 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 22 times

    Finally, we find no error in the trial court's ruling permitting John Sheppard to testify over appellant's objection that his name was not listed on the state's response to discovery. See generally, Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mobley v. State, supra; Ramirez v. State, 241 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); and Buttler v. State, 238 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.

  9. Johnson v. State

    427 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    The rules are not designed to provide a procedural escape hatch on appeal for avoidance of the jury's verdict, absent a showing of prejudice or harm to the defendant. Ivester v. State, 398 So.2d 926, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832, 834 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Ludwick v. State, 336 So.2d 701, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Appellant has not alleged in his brief that the trial court erred in failing to make a Richardson inquiry. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971).

  10. Williams v. State

    399 So. 2d 484 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

    PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1971); Holman v. State, 347 So.2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mobley v. State, 327 So.2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Pizzo v. State, 289 So.2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Buttler v. State, 238 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).