From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Suda v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 4, 2003
838 So. 2d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

concluding that the State's nondisclosure of its intent to call a witness prior to trial was harmful because it may have affected the defense's trial strategy

Summary of this case from Scipio v. State

Opinion

Case No. 1D02-488.

Opinion filed March 4, 2003.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County, Charles A. Francis, Judge.

John M. Weinberg, Miami, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Daniel A. David, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


Appellant, Christopher Suda, appeals his judgment and sentence for trafficking in Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) on the grounds that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of an undisclosed State witness. We agree, and reverse and remand the matter for a new trial.

While the trial court properly found the State's failure to disclose the witness prior to trial was error, it abused its discretion in finding that the discovery violation was harmless because Suda was aware of the existence of the witness, and could have deposed her prior to trial.

[W]here the State commits a discovery violation, the standard for deeming the violation harmless is extraordinarily high. A defendant is presumed to be procedurally prejudiced "if there is a reasonable [possibility] that the defendant's trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the violation not occurred."

Cox v. State, 819 So.2d 705, 712 (Fla. 2002) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla. 1995)). In this case, there is a reasonable possibility that had the State disclosed prior to trial its intent to call the witness, Suda would not only have deposed the witness, but may very well have altered his trial strategy. Thus, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that Suda was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation, and we reverse and remand for a new trial. See Cox, 819 So.2d at 712. In light of our determination as to this issue, we see no need to address Suda's other claim.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

DAVIS, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Suda v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Mar 4, 2003
838 So. 2d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

concluding that the State's nondisclosure of its intent to call a witness prior to trial was harmful because it may have affected the defense's trial strategy

Summary of this case from Scipio v. State

concluding that the State's untimely disclosure of its intent to call a witness at trial was not harmless error because it could have changed the defendant's trial strategy

Summary of this case from McDuffie v. State

reversing and remanding for a new trial where the State's failure to disclose prior to trial its intent to call a witness "may very well have altered" the defendant's trial strategy

Summary of this case from Muniz v. State
Case details for

Suda v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER SUDA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Mar 4, 2003

Citations

838 So. 2d 665 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Scipio v. State

Then, in analyzing whether the discovery violation was harmless, this Court reiterated the procedural…

Muniz v. State

Based on our record, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that Muniz did not suffer procedural prejudice…