rethInkIngharmLesserroranaLysIsaPPLICatIonandrIChardson hearIngs appellate practice Section Chairs : BrandonBreslow – Kynes , Markman & Felman & DavidCostello – FLOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral
maintainingaperseerror analysisforfailuretoconduct hearingsmayhavebeen amoreeffectivewayto conservejudicialresources .
A Richardson hearing becomes necessary in criminal trials when a potential discovery violation arises . The court ’ s inquiry involves determining the violation ’ s existence , nature , and the resulting prejudice on the affected party . 1 Prejudice , in this context , focuses on whether the violation “ materially hindered ” the party ’ s trial preparation . 2 Ideally , the record of this inquiry should reflect the party ’ s position on how its preparation was impacted , so the ruling court is not left to speculate on the matter .
Historically , a failure to conduct a Richardson hearing was a per se error , leading to automatic reversal . 3 However , in 1995 , the Florida Supreme Court introduced a harmless error analysis for such cases . 4 As seen in other legal contexts , the rationale behind the shift is to conserve judicial labor by avoiding reversals on technicalities . 5 The question arises : has this shift achieved its objective in the context of discovery violation claims ? A review of various 2023 appellate decisions suggests it has not . Despite the shift to a harmless error analysis , most cases dealing with a claim of failure to conduct a Richardson hearing resulted in
reversal . 6 The courts found that the record lacked sufficient information to determine procedural prejudice without resorting to speculation . 7 Interestingly , the Florida Supreme Court defines cases where an appellate court cannot conduct a harmless error analysis due to the need to speculate as a category of per se error . 8 Thus , while binding precedent tells us that a failure to conduct a Richardson hearing is not per se reversible , the application of this rule by the appellate courts indicates the contrary .
In light of the latest cases , maintaining a per se error analysis for failures to conduct Richardson hearings may have been a more effective way to conserve judicial resources . As suggested by Justice Harding in his dissenting opinion in Schopp , designating an error as “ per se ” is prophylactic . 9 Namely , it incentivizes parties to avoid discovery violations and trial courts to conduct adequate Richardson inquiries . Certainly , shifting back to a per se error analysis in this context has the potential to reverse cases where a party suffers no procedural prejudice . The result , in the long run , however , may be a reduction of appeals grounded on a failure to conduct Richardson hearings . n
Disclaimer : The opinions expressed in this article reflect solely the author ’ s views and not the views of her employer .
1
State v . Schopp , 653 So . 2d 1016 , 1021 ( Fla . 1995 ).
2
Scipio v . State , 928 So . 2d 1138 , 1150 ( Fla . 2006 ).
3
Smith v . State , 500 So . 2d 125 , 125 ( Fla . 1986 ).
4
Schopp , 653 So . 2d at 1021 .
5
See Goodwin v . State , 751 So . 2d 537 , 540 ( Fla . 1999 ).
6
Tyson v . State , 361 So . 3d 408 , 414 ( Fla . 5th Dist . App . 2023 ); Gurolla v . State , 370 So . 3d 694 , 699 ( Fla . 5th Dist . App . 2023 ); Young v .
State , 369 So . 3d 1243 , 1252 ( Fla . 6th Dist . App . 2023 ).
7
Id .
8
See Seadler v . Marina Bay Resort
Condo . Assn ., Inc ., No . SC2022-0984 , 2023 WL 8817327 , at * 4 ( Fla . Dec . 21 , 2023 ).
Author : Natalia C . Reyna- Pimiento – Florida Office of the Attorney General
Did You Know ... You can update your own contact information with HCBA in your online member profile at hillsbar . com .
1 6 M A R - A P R 2 0 2 4 | H C B A L A W Y E R