Opinion
Case No. 5D19-1671
03-20-2020
Charles Donwick FRAZIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Teresa D. Sutton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
COHEN, J.
Charles Frazier appeals the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of battery on a detention or commitment staff member. Frazier raises two arguments on appeal, only one of which merits discussion: that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an adequate Richardson hearing. We agree and reverse.
§ 784.075, Fla. Stat. (2018).
Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971).
Frazier was committed as a juvenile to a residential program at Marion Youth Academy ("MYA"), a private contractor for the Department of Juvenile Justice. The alleged battery forming the basis of this case occurred at MYA, although Frazier was charged as an adult.
During his preparation for trial, Frazier reviewed the video from a body camera worn by a law enforcement officer who responded to MYA after the alleged battery. Based on that video, it became evident that law enforcement was in possession of discoverable documents and information which the State failed to provide to Frazier. The missing discovery included at least four witnesses’ statements and a statement from the victim. Additionally, other documents in the video revealed that MYA staff members, whose names were not disclosed to Frazier, were present immediately after the alleged battery and interacted with the victim at that time. Furthermore, MYA surveillance footage established that there were at least six witnesses to the event, whose names and addresses had not been disclosed.
In the months before trial, Frazier made repeated requests to the State to provide the missing discovery. By the time of the pretrial conference, Frazier had received only one witness’s statement and accordingly, requested a Richardson hearing. At the hearing, Frazier outlined each alleged violation. However, the trial court did not make oral findings or enter a written order.
Twelve days later, immediately before jury selection, the parties addressed the remaining discovery issues. The State confirmed that since the Richardson hearing, it learned that law enforcement had the witnesses’ statements and the victim’s report in its possession; it provided those documents to Frazier, although the witnesses’ statements did not include the witnesses’ addresses. Additionally, since the Richardson hearing, Frazier had been provided the names and addresses of the six witnesses in the surveillance footage, although two witnesses did not show up for depositions on such short notice, and Frazier had not had an opportunity to contact two other witnesses, whose information was provided forty-eight hours earlier. Frazier moved for a continuance, but the trial court denied his motion. The case proceeded to trial, and Frazier was found guilty as charged.
We recognize that the assistant state attorney, who became substitute counsel after the violations were committed, utilized her best efforts to comply with the State’s discovery obligations.
Interestingly, MYA had refused to provide either the names or addresses to the State. For discovery purposes, "[t]he State is charged with constructive knowledge and possession of evidence withheld by other state agents ....]" Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 520 (Fla. 1998) (citing Gorham v. State, 597 So. 2d 782, 784 (Fla. 1992) ); cf. Franklin v. State, 975 So. 2d 1188, 1189–90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining that state was required to produce certain documents in possession of Department of Corrections).
"A trial court’s rulings regarding the three-prongs of Richardson are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, but this discretion can be exercised only following a proper inquiry." Brown v. State, 165 So. 3d 726, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (citations omitted). When a defendant timely raises a potential discovery violation, Richardson requires the trial court to determine whether the State violated a discovery rule. State v. Roberson, 152 So. 3d 776, 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Richardson, 246 So. 2d at 775 ). If the trial court determines that the State committed a discovery violation, "it must inquire into whether the ... violation was (1) inadvertent or willful, (2) trivial or substantial, and (3) whether it procedurally prejudiced the opposing party’s ability to prepare for trial." Smith v. State, 283 So. 3d 817, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citations omitted). During a Richardson hearing, the State has the burden to show that the defendant was not prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. Lee v. State, 538 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Two facts are undisputed: the State committed multiple discovery violations and the trial court did not make the necessary findings pursuant to Richardson. Because at least some discovery violations occurred, pursuant to Richardson, the trial court was required to consider whether the violations were willful or inadvertent, substantial or trivial, and prejudicial or nonprejudicial.
This is not a case where we can ascertain that, despite the failure to make such findings, a review of the record reflects that the trial judge "conducted a careful inquiry into the circumstances surrounding defense counsel’s objection to the calling of the witnesses and carefully complied with the requirements of Richardson ...." Ansley v. State, 302 So. 2d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The State suggests the Richardson violation was harmless because the discovery violations did not impact Frazier’s preparation for trial.
Prior to the disclosure of the identities of the six witnesses, the only evidence related to the alleged battery was Frazier’s testimony, the victim’s testimony, and unclear surveillance footage. Two of the late-disclosed witnesses testified at trial; Frazier was able to utilize one witness at trial, and the State utilized the other. Ultimately, however, four witnesses were unable to be deposed prior to trial. Thus, as argued by Frazier below, there is a reasonable probability that Frazier’s trial preparation or strategy would have been materially different had the State’s discovery violations not occurred.
Because the State’s discovery violations resulted in cognizable prejudice to Frazier, and the missing discovery was not provided to Frazier until after the expiration of the speedy trial period, we reverse with instructions to discharge Frazier. See Von Waldner v. State, 860 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (instructing trial court to discharge defendant because state’s discovery violations prejudiced defendant and were uncorrectable within speedy trial period).
REVERSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.