Opinion ID: 1096510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: admissibility of discovery deposition as substantive evidence

Text: We first address the admissibility of discovery depositions as substantive evidence. As indicated above, the victim's deposition testimony was admitted under section 90.801(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), which reads in part as follows: (2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is: (a) Inconsistent with [the declarant's] testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition. (Emphasis added.) In determining that the victim's deposition testimony was admissible under this section as substantive evidence, the district court relied on this Court's decision in Moore v. State, 452 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1984) ( Moore I ). In Moore I, this Court concluded that prior inconsistent statements given in grand jury proceedings could be properly admitted under section 90.801(2)(a) as substantive evidence. Additionally, we specifically ruled that the words other proceeding within the meaning of section 90.801(2)(a) included a grand jury proceeding. We did not, however, address the issue before us here; that is, whether the term deposition as used in section 90.801(2)(a) includes depositions taken for purposes of discovery under rule 3.220. At the outset, it is important to note that, before Florida's adoption of the evidence code, prior inconsistent statements could never be admitted as substantive evidence. State v. Delgado-Santos, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 1986). Consequently, the 1978 adoption of the evidence code allowed, for the first time, the use of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence under the conditions set forth in section 90.801(2)(a). Delgado-Santos v. State, 471 So.2d 74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), approved, 497 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1986). As we indicated in Moore I, section 90.801(2)(a) was inspired in part by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1), which requires the statement to have been given under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury, at a trial, hearing, or deposition. 452 So.2d at 561-62. See also Webb v. State, 426 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 440 So.2d 354 (Fla. 1983). Because section 90.801(2)(a) was patterned after the federal provision and because the federal provision had been interpreted to include grand jury proceedings, we concluded that prior inconsistent statements made to a grand jury came within the confines of section 90.801(2)(a). We recognize, however, that we cannot use similar federal interpretations in our analysis here because the rules governing Florida's criminal discovery process are much broader than those governing the federal discovery process and Florida's rules expressly allow for the use of discovery depositions. Florida's rules of criminal procedure provide for two types of depositions in criminal cases: (1) depositions to perpetuate testimony as set forth in rule 3.190(j); and (2) depositions for purposes of pre-trial discovery as set forth in rule 3.220(h). [1] These two types of depositions are very distinct. Depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.190 are specifically taken for the purpose of introducing those depositions at trial as substantive evidence. Depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.220, on the other hand, are for discovery purposes only and, for a number of reasons, assist in shortening the length of trials. How a lawyer prepares for and asks questions of a deposition witness whose testimony may be admissible at trial as substantive evidence under rule 3.190 is entirely different from how a lawyer prepares for and asks questions of a witness being deposed for discovery purposes under rule 3.220. In effect, the knowledge that a deposition witness's testimony can be used substantively at trial may have a chilling effect on a lawyer's questioning of such a witness. We have previously concluded that discovery depositions may not be used as substantive evidence in a criminal trial. State v. James, 402 So.2d 1169, 1171 (Fla.1981). We reached that holding based on the fact that rule 3.220 plainly states that discovery depositions `may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness,' id. (quoting rule 3.220), and does not provide for the use of such depositions as substantive evidence. See also Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992) (only depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.190(j) may be used as substantive evidence because rule 3.220 makes no provision for the use of discovery depositions as substantive evidence), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 99, 126 L.Ed.2d 66 (1993); Terrell v. State, 407 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (for a deposition to be used as substantive evidence, it must be taken in compliance with rule 3.190, not rule 3.220). Given our holding in James and the distinctions between depositions taken pursuant to rules 3.190 and 3.220, we must conclude that the term deposition in section 90.801(2)(a) does not include depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.220. To permit the use of rule 3.220 depositions as substantive evidence would discourage and chill the use of discovery depositions and would limit the criminal pre-trial discovery process. As noted by Judge Ervin, courts construing the term deposition in section 90.804(2)(a) [2] have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Rodriguez; Smith v. State, 606 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (substantive use of a deposition taken solely for the purpose of discovery is improper under section 90.804(2)(a)); Clark v. State, 572 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (only depositions taken to perpetuate testimony under rule 3.190(j) are admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.804(2)(a)), quashed in part on different grounds, 614 So.2d 453 (Fla.1993); Jackson v. State, 453 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (deposition taken under 3.220 and not 3.190 not admissible under 90.804(2)(a)). We recognize that two lower courts have issued decisions that could be construed to the contrary. See Dennis v. State, 649 So.2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (videotaped deposition of child was properly admitted as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a) after child appeared at trial and recanted prior statements), dismissed, 666 So.2d 142 (Fla.1995); Holmon v. State, 603 So.2d 111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (prior deposition testimony was admissible both as impeachment and as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a)). Neither of those cases, however, discussed whether the depositions were taken for pre-trial discovery purposes under rule 3.220 or to perpetuate testimony under rule 3.190. Nevertheless, to ensure that no confusion exists as to the issue before us today, we answer the first question in the negative and specifically hold that the term deposition as used in section 90.801(2)(a) does not include discovery depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.220. We additionally disapprove both Dennis and Holmon to the extent they could be construed to hold that depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.220 are admissible as substantive evidence under section 90.801(2)(a). To hold otherwise would require us to disapprove numerous other decisions of this Court and the district courts of appeal stating that discovery depositions cannot be used as substantive evidence.