Title: In Re Amendment to Florida Rule Crim. Proc.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

550 So. 2d 1097 (1989)
In re AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220 (DISCOVERY).
No. 73734.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 3, 1989.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing November 2, 1989.
Rutledge R. Liles, President, The Florida Bar, Jacksonville, Stephen N. Zack, President-elect, The Florida Bar, Miami, Honorable Stan R. Morris, Chairman, Supreme Court Criminal Discovery Com'n, Gainesville, Anthony C. Musto, Acting Chairman, Florida Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Miami, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Barry A. Cohen, President, Florida Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Tampa, Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Tallahassee, Designated Representative for the Florida Public Defender Ass'n, Inc.; and David B. Higginbottom, Frostproof, for petitioners.
Janet Reno, State Atty., Miami, Arthur Jacobs, General Counsel, Florida Pros. Attys. Ass'n, Fernandina Beach, Peter Antonacci, Office of Statewide Prosecution, Tallahassee, Donald M. Middlebrooks of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, and Ed Austin, Com'r, Com'n on Criminal Discovery, State Atty., Jacksonville, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a Concurrent Resolution from the Florida Legislature[1] requesting this Court to appoint a commission for the purpose of reviewing Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, regarding the discovery process in criminal cases, we now consider the findings and recommendations of the Florida Supreme Court Commission on Criminal Discovery. In addition, we also consider the proposals and recommendations submitted by other parties interested in the administration of our criminal justice system. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
Initially, we would like to thank the many people who worked with the Commission on Criminal Discovery, who testified before the Commission, and all those who played some part in the production of the Commission's report and participated in the oral arguments before this Court on April 18, 1989. Only through their hard work and effort have we been able to complete this extensive review of a difficult, perplexing question.
In its concurrent resolution, the legislature requested this Court to consider a petition submitted by the State Attorneys of Florida addressing proposed changes in rule 3.220. The legislature requested this Court to appoint the Commission on Criminal Discovery (Commission) to hear testimony on criminal discovery procedures and review the proposals. The legislature requested the Commission to consider:
Pursuant to this request, we appointed the Commission on Criminal Discovery.[3] The Commission listened to testimony in three locations (Tallahassee, Tampa, and Fort Lauderdale) and submitted its findings, report, and proposals to this Court on February 1, 1989. Afterwards, we sent the report, along with the minority reports of commissioners in disagreement with the *1098 Commission report, to the Florida Bar Criminal Rules Committee (Committee) for consideration. The Committee returned the report to us with a number of recommendations, some of which we have adopted.
We scheduled oral argument to consider the Commission's proposals, the Committee's recommendations, and the minority reports, and we requested all interested parties to submit proposals or letters in support of or in opposition to the Commission's proposals. Following oral argument, we considered all proposals and, accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 in the manner set forth in the appendix to this opinion.
From all the evidence and testimony taken during the proceedings one fact is clear: virtually all parties at oral argument recognized that depositions in criminal cases play a necessary role in our criminal justice system by insuring fairness and equal administration of justice. Moreover, although there are undeniably some abuses of the deposition process, such abuses are not nearly as widespread as originally feared. Indeed, the records and transcripts in these proceedings lead to a single inevitable conclusion. Discovery depositions are a necessary and valuable part of our criminal justice system, and they are clearly worth the risk of some minor abuse. Although we are amending the discovery rule in hopes of curtailing these abuses, we retain discovery depositions in all cases except misdemeanor cases, where depositions may only be taken upon a showing of good cause.
With some notable exceptions and some minor changes, we accept the Commission's proposed amendments to rule 3.220. The following is a summary of those amendments. Rule 3.220(a) is added to insure that if a defendant utilizes the discovery process, he or she will be required to reciprocate fully in discovery with the prosecution. Rules 3.220(b)(1)(i)(a)-(b) and 3.220(h)(1)(i)-(ii) are amended to provide prosecutors the discretion to designate certain witnesses who may not be deposed unless ordered by the trial court, upon good cause shown. This amendment also provides for sanctions against either side for abuses in designating witnesses or in taking depositions.
Rule 3.220(b)(1)(ii) is amended to include all police reports within the meaning of the term "statement." Rule 3.220(b)(2) is amended to emphasize that information favorable to the defense must be produced regardless of whether the defense files a notice of discovery. An introduction to rule 3.220(d) is added to reflect the change in nomenclature from "demand for discovery" to "notice of discovery." Rule 3.220(h)(1)(iii) abolishes discovery depositions in misdemeanor cases except upon good cause shown. This proposal was not advanced by the Commission, but rather was recommended by the Committee, which supported the abolition of depositions in misdemeanor cases by a vote of eighteen to four.
Rule 3.220(h)(3) is added to provide that depositions shall be taken in the building where the trial will be held, or in a place designated by the trial judge, administrative judge, or chief judge, or by agreement of the parties. Rule 3.220(h)(4) is added to provide for videotaping of witnesses under the age of sixteen, and to provide that depositions of witnesses of fragile emotional strength may be taken before the trial judge or a special master. This addition is intended to protect these witnesses from harassment or intimidation during the taking of a deposition.
Rule 3.220(h)(5) provides for the establishment of Witness Coordination Offices to help coordinate the taking of depositions of law enforcement officers, although the rule does not mandate the establishment of such offices. Rule 3.220(h)(6) states that a defendant shall not be present at a deposition except upon stipulation of the parties or court order upon good cause shown. The rule defines the court's considerations in reviewing a defendant's motion to be present at a deposition. Rule 3.220(h)(7) allows statements of law enforcement officers to be taken by telephone in lieu of depositions upon stipulation by the parties and consent of the witness.
*1099 Rule 3.220(n)(2) details sanctions to be imposed against counsel for willful violation of an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto. Rule 3.220(n)(3) is added to require that attorneys or parties filing any papers pursuant to these rules must provide certification that they are requesting or providing discovery in good faith. In addition to these changes, several minor amendments involving numerical adjustments and word rearrangement are also adopted by this Court.
Appended to this opinion is the amended and new Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 relating to criminal discovery procedures. Deletions are indicated by use of struck-through type. New language is indicated by underscoring. All rules and statutes in conflict with the following rules are hereby superceded as of the effective date of these rules. The comments are the work of the Commission, the Committee, and this Court, and are not adopted by the Court as part of the rules. These amendments shall become effective July 1, 1989.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
GRIMES, J., concurs with an opinion.
KOGAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion, in which SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, Justice, concurring specially.
I fully concur with the modifications in our discovery rule which address the problems and abuses that our commission objectively identified. We have made some major changes, which include restricting discovery in misdemeanors, limiting the defendant's presence at depositions, providing for protection of certain witnesses, and strengthening the sanctions for abuse of the discovery process. I find that three points should be mentioned.
The first concerns cost efficiency in discovery depositions. It would be inappropriate to address this matter in the rule because it is one which should be handled administratively. I strongly believe that all chief judges in this state should take the necessary steps to reduce deposition discovery costs by utilizing, to every extent possible, electronic reporting for criminal discovery depositions. The Eighth and Ninth Circuits have substantially reduced their costs by having such programs in place for years. Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.070(c) authorizes this practice.
Second, we have restricted discovery in misdemeanor cases because the process has been abused in these cases, especially in DUI matters. If law enforcement provides the defendant with a complete police report, including a full statement from the officer or officers who will testify as to the elements of the offense, then the fairness of these proceedings should not be adversely affected and the number of good cause hearings should be substantially reduced.
Third, it is important to understand that our discovery rule cannot be considered in a vacuum. Other rules are dependent upon full reciprocal discovery. For example, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.200, our notice of alibi rule, requires a defendant to furnish the state with specific information of where he claims to have been at the time of the offense and with the names and addresses of those persons who will support his alibi defense. The United States Supreme Court upheld this rule in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446 (1970), because reciprocal discovery was available. On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court, in Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S. Ct. 2208, 37 L. Ed. 2d 82 (1973), found the same type of alibi rule unconstitutional on due process grounds because that state did not provide reciprocal discovery in its rules. Further, as we explained in Sparks v. State, 273 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1973), and State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983), our discovery rules have eliminated the necessity for a number of prior common law rules developed to assure a fair trial when no discovery existed. If the discovery rule is substantially changed, then how defendants are charged in indictments and informations would have to be modified since our "broad discovery" rule, as explained in Waters, eliminated the need for detailed specificity in informations and indictments.
All should agree that fairness is an essential ingredient in any justice system. While a great deal has been said about Florida being one of only a few states allowing discovery, nothing has been said concerning the fact that we are also one of the few states which permits prosecuting attorneys to subpoena witnesses to testify ex parte before them. As conceded by the statewide prosecutor during oral argument, only a few jurisdictions give prosecuting *1108 attorneys that authority.[*] In most jurisdictions, the prosecuting attorneys are limited in their subpoena power. Our discovery process was developed to bring fairness and efficiency to the criminal justice process in a manner that allows both sides to know what witnesses will say. The process is not only fair but, as most authorities agree, it is also more efficient because the number of guilty pleas is increased and the number of trials is significantly reduced.
I conclude that the court has properly modified the discovery rule.
GRIMES, Justice, concurring.
I write this opinion to explain my vote to eliminate depositions as a matter of course in misdemeanor and criminal traffic offense cases.
A defendant does not have a constitutional right to take depositions. A large majority of the other states do not permit him to do so. Nevertheless, I fully concur with the decision to continue to permit depositions in felony cases because of their role in ensuring fairness and the equal administration of justice. I also acknowledge that there are some misdemeanor and criminal traffic offense cases in which the taking of depositions may further the same objectives. However, the evidence presented to the Commission convinces me that the benefits to be derived from permitting unlimited depositions in those cases does not justify the expenditure of resources. According to the Commission's report:
Report of the Florida Supreme Court's Commission on Criminal Discovery, at 35-38 (Feb. 1, 1989) [hereinafter Commission Report] (footnotes 63, 65-73 omitted.)
Drawing the line between felonies and misdemeanors may be viewed as arbitrary, but it is a line that the legislature has drawn in prescribing lower penalties for less serious crimes. Moreover, the Commission's report indicates that much of the law enforcement officers' deposition time is spent in DUI cases, many of which do not involve the likelihood of incarceration. In addition, we have amended these rules to require the state to provide the defendant with the police reports in all cases. Finally, upon a showing of good cause, the defendant can still take depositions even in misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases. It is also significant that while the Commission did not recommend the change, the Criminal Rules Committee approved it by an overwhelming vote.
The following portion of the separate statement of Commission member Donald M. Middlebrooks is well taken:
Commission Report, Middlebrooks, Criminal Discovery in Florida  A System Tilting Towards the Defense at 14-15.
KOGAN, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part.
Generally, if something is not broken, repairs are not necessary. I do not believe, as the State Attorneys of Florida argue, that the criminal discovery deposition system is broken. Accordingly, I would not attempt to fix it. While I agree that our *1110 system of taking discovery depositions needs some fine tuning as has been recommended by our Commission on Criminal Discovery and by The Florida Bar Criminal Rules Committee, I dissent from the provisions allowing prosecutors to limit the scope of available deponents and eliminating discovery depositions in misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases.
The state attorneys complain of widespread abuse of the discovery process by defense attorneys throughout the state. The testimony at proceedings conducted by the Supreme Court Discovery Rules Commission suggests that this is not the case. The Court's concern here is the efficient, fair, fiscally-sound administration of justice. While most of those who testified at the proceedings were primarily interested in gaining a tactical advantage for one side or the other, the one notable exception to this was the circuit judges, who clearly shared our interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice. Each judge who provided input stated, without reservation, that discovery depositions were vital to the administration of justice and that claims of abuse were significantly overstated.
It is eminently unfair that we allow all parties in civil proceedings full discovery before the adjudication of a property or financial dispute, while we limit a defendant's ability to conduct discovery in criminal proceedings where his or her life or liberty is at stake. It makes no logical sense to allow full discovery in civil cases but restrict discovery in criminal cases.
It is equally illogical to give prosecutors the discretion to determine which witnesses are relevant to a defendant's case and those witnesses who are not. Even assuming that a prosecutor will always exercise this discretion in good faith, the prosecutor is not in a position to determine what is relevant to the defendant's case. Relevance is in the eye of the beholder, particularly when the beholder is an adversary. I firmly believe that a defendant should be allowed to determine which witnesses may be important to his or her case. Prosecutors cannot accurately predict or determine what a defendant's case will be. It is the function of a defendant's trial counsel to determine those matters that are important to the defendant's case. This is made more difficult under the new rule adopted by the majority.
Lastly, the elimination of discovery depositions in misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases is unfair to the defendant. The Commission listened to many hours of testimony and reached the conclusion that discovery depositions are an essential part of our criminal justice system in all cases, not merely felony cases. On the other hand, the Criminal Rules Committee considered the issue at one meeting, and without any testimonial or evidentiary support, concluded that depositions in misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases should be eliminated. I can see no basis for this conclusion, as none was ever presented, but I do see the great harm it will cause.
Depositions in misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases, as in all criminal cases, ferret out the frivolous cases, clarify the factual issues, and improve the efficiency of the system at the county court level. Their elimination will radically disrupt the fair and equitable administration of justice in misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases.
It is no coincidence that each county court judge who submitted evidence, correspondence, or testimony to the Commission fully supported the retention of discovery depositions, especially in misdemeanor and criminal traffic cases. It has been well documented that abolishing these depositions will result in further case overload that will place an insurmountable burden on the county courts, making their jobs substantially more difficult. If the administration of justice is truly our ambition, these rules changes ignore that ambition.
Accordingly, I concur in part and dissent in part from the Court's adoption of the Commission's proposals. I would leave rule 3.220, as it pertains to discovery depositions in criminal cases, substantially unchanged.
SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
[1]  HCR 1679, 1988 Fla.Laws 2442.
[2]  Id. at 2443.
[3]  In re Criminal Discovery Commission, Fla. Admin.Order (July 7, 1988).
[*]  It appears that only three other states authorize prosecuting attorneys to act in this fashion. See Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-801 (1977); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23.3101 (1981); La. Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 66 (West Supp. 1987).