State v. Dumas
| Decision Date | 19 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-83,78-83 |
| Citation | 363 So.2d 568 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Michael DUMAS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet Reno, State's Atty., and David M. Waksman, Asst. State's Atty., for petitioner.
Andrew H. Boros and Terrance J. McWilliams, Miami, for respondent.
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the state seeking review of a pre-trial discovery order entered by the trial court in a criminal case. The state and the defendant, as respondent herein, have filed briefs and presented oral argument to this court in the cause.
The primary issue presented for review centers around what types of police reports, if any, must be produced by the state on pre-trial discovery for the defendant in a criminal case. We hold that upon the filing of a proper written demand for discovery by the defendant under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1)(i) and (ii), the state is only required to produce the following particular types of police reports: (1) those police reports which are written and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by a person whose name has been furnished by the prosecutor to the defendant upon demand under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1)(i), and (2) those police reports which contain a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement which is (a) made by a person whose name has been furnished by the prosecutor to the defendant upon demand under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1)(i), and (b) made to an officer or agent of the state who recorded such statement contemporaneously with the making thereof. 1 We accordingly quash the order under review as being overbroad.
The facts pertinent to the issue before the court are undisputed. On November 10, 1977, the defendant Michael Dumas and a co-defendant were charged by information with the crime of burglary of a structure before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. On November 28, 1977, the defendant Dumas entered a plea of not guilty. On December 6, 1977, the defendant filed a lengthy written demand for discovery in which he requested Inter alia : (1) the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information which may be relevant to the offense charged, and to any defense with respect thereto under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1)(i), and (2) copies of all statements of any persons known to the prosecutor to have information relevant to the offense charged and to any defense thereto (including but not limited to police reports filed in the cause) under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1) (ii). The state filed a response to this demand for discovery but withheld any police reports contending that they were not discoverable under Florida law. The defendant filed a motion for the production of all such police reports and, upon a hearing held on such motion, the trial court ordered the carte blanche production of all police reports filed in the cause "unless such reports contain material which should be protected."
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1) provides that "(a)fter the filing of the indictment or information, within fifteen days after written demand by the defendant, the prosecutor shall disclose to defense counsel . . . (i) the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information which may be relevant to the offense charged, and to any defense with respect thereto; (and) (ii) the statement of any person whose name is furnished in compliance with the preceding paragraph (subsection (i))." A "statement" is thereafter defined by the rule to mean one of two things: (1) "a written statement made by said person and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him, or a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcript thereof;" or (2) "a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said person to an officer or agent of the State and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement . . .". Finally, the rule in conjunction with Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(i) provides that upon the request of any person, the trial court may make an in camera inspection of any police reports supplied under this rule; and upon a finding that "any police report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and (that) the disclosure of the contents of such police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of such other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict such disclosure."
This court in State v. Latimore, 284 So.2d 423 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), followed the above definition of "statement" under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(1)(ii) 2 and quashed a trial court order requiring the state to make a carte blanche discovery to the defendant of all police reports filed in connection with the case. No demand for discovery had ever been filed by the defendant under ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pettis
...3d DCA 1982); State v. Horvatch, 413 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Love, 393 So.2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Dumas, 363 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 471 (Fla.1979); State v. Latimore, 284 So.2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So.2d 7 (Fla.1......
-
Breedlove v. State
...... See State v. Johnson, 284 So.2d 198 (Fla.1973); Lockhart v. State, 384 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Black v. State, 383 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Dumas v. State, 363 So.2d 568 (Fla. . Page 5 . 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 471 (Fla.1979); Pitts v. State, 362 So.2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1979); Miller v. State, 360 So.2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); State v. Latimore, 284 So.2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), ......
-
Porter v. State
...to determine whether that demand was sufficiently specific in limiting the request for the documents as required by State v. Dumas, 363 So.2d 568 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 471 (Fla.1979). Our reversal on the first point raised by appellant makes it unnecessary for us to iss......
-
Lockhart v. State, 79-668
...to the holdings of the Third District Court of Appeal in State v. Latimore, 284 So.2d 423 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973) and State v. Dumas, 363 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978), and we therefore hold that the police reports were not discoverable as "substantially verbatim" statements of a witness. Inasm......