Gurolla v. State
The Fifth DCA reversed a conviction for attempted second-degree murder because the lead investigator's testimony that the victim's gunshot wounds were inconsistent with the defendant's claim of shooting at the ground was undisclosed expert opinion testimony rather than lay opinion, triggering an undisclosed-witness discovery violation. The trial court's failure to hold a Richardson hearing on the matter was presumptively harmful and the State failed to show the defendant was not procedurally prejudiced.
Key facts
- Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder in trial court based in part on lead investigator's testimony regarding gunshot wound patterns and bullet fragmentation.
- The investigator testified that the victim's wounds were inconsistent with defendant's claim of shooting at the ground, but the investigator was not disclosed as an expert witness.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion gives criminal defense practitioners a useful template for arguing that lay police witnesses who testify about forensic consistency between physical evidence (wounds, bullet fragmentation, ballistics) are… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.