Court Opinion

ID: 9660438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:13:34.020578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:12.327594
License: Public Domain

HAZOURI, J.,
concurring specially.
I concur and write to note that the error here was compounded by the failure of the trial judge to conduct a Richardson3 hearing. When McFadden’s counsel objected and asserted a discovery violation, the trial judge overruled the objection because he concluded the detective’s testimony was rebuttal and, therefore, not subject to a discovery violation. “There is neither a rebuttal nor impeachment exception to the Richardson rule.” Elledge v. State, 613 So.2d 434, 436 (Fla.1993); see also Portner v. State, 802 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Elledge, 613 So.2d at 436).

. Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971).