Court Opinion

ID: 9782965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:31:33.497083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:17.229511
License: Public Domain

JACOBUS, J.,
concurring specially.
It is troubling to this judge that the surveillance tape was not originally secured by the investigating officer. It would be apparent to anyone that the tape would be a critical piece of evidence and a copy, at the minimum, should have been secured. It is also troubling that the officer was permitted to discuss the contents of the tape before the jury since that testimony was clearly inadmissible hearsay. Once the existence of the tape was discovered by Young’s counsel, it would seem that Young would be entitled to a Richardson2 hearing, even though, as the State claims, the tape was never offered into evidence and was never in its possession.

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