Court Opinion

ID: 7677614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 03:04:04.996299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:26:28.509765
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
E.V.V. appeals an order adjudicating him delinquent for theft. We conclude (a) that there was no violation of the best evidence rule, § 90.952, Fla.Stat. (1991); (b) that there was no abuse of discretion with respect to the Richardson1 hearing; (c) that there was no Brady2 violation, see Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d *360281 (1988); and (d) that the motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied.
Affirmed.

. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971).

. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).