Opinion ID: 2543605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Requiring the Defense to Produce Raw Data

Text: Abdool next claims that the trial court erred in ordering the defense to turn over to the prosecution raw data from the defense's mental health expert prior to the penalty phase. We disagree. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.202(e) provides: If the defendant refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the state's mental health expert, the court may, in its discretion: (1) order the defense to allow the state's expert to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant's mental health expert; or (2) prohibit defense mental health experts from testifying concerning mental health tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant. (Emphasis added). However, rule 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii) provides that if a defendant elects to participate in discovery, the defendant shall turn over to the prosecution reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons . . . . Abdool's argument is that rule 3.202 somehow preempts rule 3.220 and that the discovery rules no longer apply in the penalty phase. But nothing in rule 3.202 prohibits a trial court from ordering reciprocal discovery under rule 3.220. Furthermore, this Court has applied both rule 3.202 and rule 3.220 in penalty phase proceedings. See Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1126-27 (Fla.2000). In Kearse, the defendant argued during the penalty phase that rule 3.202 was unconstitutional because it imposed discovery obligations on the defense but no corresponding obligation on the State. Id. We rejected that argument and explained that [w]hile rule 3.202 does not by its terms require reciprocal discovery by the State, rule 3.220 spells out very specific discovery obligations by both sides when the defendant elects to participate in discovery. Id. at 1127. Accordingly, rule 3.220 continues to apply during the penalty phase. Therefore, we reject Abdool's argument that the trial court erred in applying the rules of discovery during the penalty phase.