Title: State v. Basiliere

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

353 So. 2d 820 (1977)
STATE of Florida, Plaintiff,
v.
Ronald BASILIERE, Defendant.
No. 50658.

Supreme Court of Florida.
October 20, 1977.
Rehearing Denied January 30, 1978.
*821 Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and George Volsky, Asst. State Atty., Miami, for plaintiff.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Julian S. Mack and Thomas S. Wilson, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, Miami, for defendant.
KARL, Justice.
We have before us certified questions from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, relating to the use of deposition testimony as evidence in a criminal trial upon a finding of unavailability of the witness. It appears that the questions presented herein are determinative of the cause and are without controlling precedent in this state. We have jurisdiction to answer the certified questions. Florida Appellate Rule 4.6, Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1963), Boyer v. City of Orlando, 232 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1970).
Ronald Basiliere was charged with aggravated battery upon Edward Daly. Defendant's attorney filed a notice to take the deposition of Daly pursuant to Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.220(d). The victim appeared at the deposition and was examined, under oath and in the presence of an official court reporter, by defense counsel although defendant, in custody at the Dade County jail, was not present during the taking of said deposition. Following the taking of his deposition, the victim *822 became unavailable as a result of his death from natural causes. Because the deposition testimony is material to the state's case, the state will be unable to proceed with the case without the deposition testimony. Therefore, the state has filed a motion to use the deposition testimony of the victim as evidence in the defendant's trial.
The trial court has certified the following questions as dispositive of the cause:
Section 16 of the Declaration of Rights, Florida Constitution, provides in pertinent part:
Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.220(d) provides in part:
Rule 3.190(j), Florida Criminal Procedure Rules, which relates to depositions to perpetuate testimony, provides:
We find that, under the circumstances presented sub judice and rules of this Court, the deposition of the victim is not admissible as evidence in defendant's trial.
Defendant was in custody at the time the deposition was taken. In order to perpetuate Daly's testimony, the state would have had to proceed under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(j), which requires, inter alia, the defendant's presence during the examination of the witness.
Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224 (1920), involved inter alia the objection to introduction of testimony given at a former trial of the case of two witnesses who had become unavailable for the new trial due to illness. This Court held:
In Richardson v. State, 247 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1971), this Court was confronted with the question of whether the trial court erred in allowing several state witnesses to testify as to their recollection of one Ernell Washington's testimony at Richardson's preliminary hearing regarding Richardson's confession to the poisoning of his children. Richardson was present and was represented by counsel at the time Washington testified. At this time, defense counsel cross-examined Washington. Washington was murdered before trial. No court reporter had been present at the preliminary hearing to transcribe his testimony. Therein, this Court explicated:
The Second District Court of Appeal, in Chapman v. State, 302 So. 2d 136 (Fla.2d DCA, 1974), in reversing a rape conviction based inter alia on incriminating deposition testimony of a telephone company employee who had moved to New York, opined:
Although holding that defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after being warned by the judge that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues, he continues to act in such a disorderly, disrespectful and disruptive manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1970), recognized the right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial, as one of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the confrontation clause.[1]
Elaborating on the right of the accused to be confronted with the witnesses against him, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974), described the right as meaning more than being allowed to confront the witnesses physically and as securing as its primary interest the right of cross-examination and explained:
Defendant contends that it cannot be said that he waived his constitutional right of confrontation since, at the time of deposition, defendant had no idea that deponent would die and that his only opportunity to confront the deponent would be at the deposition. According to the certificate of facts, the subject deposition is essential to the prosecution of the defendant. Yet, when the defendant sought discovery through means of deposition, it was only to ascertain facts upon which the charge was based. Being unaware that this deposition would be the only opportunity he would have to examine and challenge the accuracy of the deponent's statements, defendant could not have been expected to conduct an *825 adequate cross-examination as to matters of which he first gained knowledge at the taking of the deposition.[2]
As to the second question certified, we hold that Rule 3.220(d), Florida Criminal Procedure Rules, providing that depositions may be used for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching testimony of the deponent as a witness provides the exclusive use of depositions in criminal proceedings unless Rule 3.190(j), Florida Criminal Procedure Rules, is met.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the questions certified are answered in the affirmative.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
[1]  Relative to the admissibility of testimony of a witness (one of the victims) given at a former trial of defendant Stubbs on the same charges, the Supreme Court of the United States in Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 92 S. Ct. 2308, 2314, 33 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1972), held:

"Since there was an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Holm at the first trial, and counsel for Stubbs availed himself of that opportunity, the transcript of Holm's testimony in the first trial bore sufficient `indicia of reliability' and afforded `"the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement,"' Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 89, 91 S. Ct. 210, 27 L. Ed. 2d 213. The witness Holm, consistently with the requirement of the Confrontation Clause, could have been and was found by the trial court to be unavailable at the time of the second trial. There was, therefore, no constitutional error in permitting his prior-recorded testimony to be read to the jury at that trial, and no constitutional infirmity in the judgment of conviction resulting from that trial that would prevent the New York courts from considering that conviction in sentencing Stubbs as a second offender. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
Reversed."
[2]  The Supreme Court, in Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725, 88 S. Ct. 1318, 1322, 20 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1968), stated:

"The State argues that petitioner waived his right to confront Woods at trial by not cross-examining him at the preliminary hearing. That contention is untenable. Not only was petitioner unaware that Woods would be in a federal prison at the time of his trial, but he was also unaware that, even assuming Woods' incarceration, the State would make no effort to produce Woods at trial. To suggest that failure to cross-examine in such circumstances constitutes a waiver of the right of confrontation at a subsequent trial hardly comports with this Court's definition of a waiver as `an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.' Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 4, 86 S. Ct. 1245, 16 L. Ed. 2d 314 (1966)."