Legal Opinion

Loisell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 31, 1997No. 97-0859PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for new trial.

Over objection by appellant, his oral statement to a detective was introduced into evidence, not withstanding the state’s failure to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b)(1)(C).

The failure to conduct a Richardson hearing cannot be said to be harmless error because of the reasonable possibility of a difference in trial preparation or strategy. State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995). Here, it is reasonably possible that the change in appellant’s strategy between opening statement and closing argument was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. LawSupreme Court of Florida · 1989
  2. State v. SchoppSupreme Court of Florida · 1995

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Acosta v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  2. Grant v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API