State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 18 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 41441,41441 |
| Citation | 280 So.2d 673 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Zebedee JOHNSON, Jr., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.
By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 249 So.2d 470, which is alleged to conflict with the decision of this Court in Roberts v. State, 164 So.2d 817 (Fla.1964).
As a result of a homicide which occurred in Miami, Florida, respondent was indicted by the grand jury on a charge of first degree murder. Initially, he entered a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense, but was later allowed to withdraw that plea.
Two trials were conducted. At the first trial, in the Circuit Court, the court entered a directed verdict of acquittal on the first degree murder charge; the jury deadlocked on the second degree charge. The result was a mistrial. Thereupon, the State filed a new information against respondent, charging him with second degree murder, and the cause was transferred to the Criminal Court of Record for further proceedings.
During the discovery period prior to the second trial, defense counsel filed a motion to examine 'any physical evidence relative to the gun with which the State charged the defendant was armed at the time of the crime'. It thereafter appeared that the fatal bullet had been lost, after examination by the police ballistics expert, sometime after respondent had entered his initial guilty plea, but before the first trial. Defendant had not been previously apprised of this loss because the prosecution had not sought to introduce testimony by the ballistics expert at the first trial.
Respondent moved to suppress the testimony of the ballistics expert at the second trial, arguing that the inability of the defense to conduct an independent examination of the bullet denied him his right of confrontation. This motion was denied by the trial court, and evidence relating to the fatal bullet was admitted into evidence Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to twenty years in the state penitentiary.
On appeal, the District Court reversed the conviction, concluding, inter alia, that the testimony of the ballistics expert was erroneously introduced into evidence. The Court reasoned:
'Rule 1.220(b) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. provides for defendant's examination of tangible evidence as well as the right to have a defense expert examine such evidence. It is this right which the appellant claims has been denied him. The State does not claim that appellant's right of examination and discovery was accorded to him but it urges that the fact that it was not accorded him was not the fault of the State. It urges that the general rule is that it is not necessary that a test be conducted in the presence of the jury or is it required that the expert submit to the jury the actual test materials. This language is found in Roberts v. State, Fla.1964, 164 So.2d 817. This case also contains a statement that in that case it was not error to refuse to compel the State to produce the bullet. We note that the single case relied upon by the state was decided prior to the effective date of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We think that appellant's right to examine tangible evidence is a part of his right to the confrontation of witnesses against him and the right to a full and complete cross-examination of the witnesses who are to be presented against him. Cf. Minturn v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 359; Belger v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 574; United States v. Williams, 424 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1970); CrPR 1.220(b).
'Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 1.220(b) is a recognition of an important procedural right and the State may not by the simple statement that they have 'lost the physical evidence' prevent the exercise of the right and then use the 'lost evidence' against the defendant. We therefore conclude that the court committed reversible error when it denied defendant's motion to suppress the ballistics expert's testimony.
'The evidence given by the ballistics expert was in no way cumulative and was so important in the case against this appellant that its admission was prejudicial error.'
Initially, we granted certiorari because of apparent conflict with Roberts v. State, Supra. However, after argument and upon further consideration of both cases, we are now persuaded that no conflict exists and that certiorari should be discharged.
In Roberts, the State placed in evidence a .25 caliber pistol which was shown to have belonged to the defendant. Also in evidence was a shell case found at the scene of the crime and a slug removed from the body of the victim. The State then called Ed Bigler, a ballistics expert, who testified that he had testifired the pistol and had had compared the markings on the test bullet with those from the evidence bullet removed from the victim. This he did under a comparison microscope. On the basis of this experiment he submitted the opinion that the bullet which resulted in the victim's death had been fired from the gun belonging to the defendant. The test bullet was not placed in evidence. Defendant contended that the test bullet should also have been filed in evidence so that the jury could compare it with the evidence bullet which had caused the death.
This Court held that it was not error to refuse to compel the State to produce the test bullet. We observed that the markings on the bullets could not be identified with the naked eye. Additionally, such markings could be interpreted only by one trained in the science or experience of ballistics. We further concluded:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Eddington, Docket No. 17081
...relied on Johnson v. Florida, 249 So.2d 470 (Fla.App.1971), which the Florida Supreme Court later affirmed, Florida v. Johnson, 280 So.2d 673 (1973). Johnson, supra, required production of hearsay sources upon which the prosecution's expert based his opinion. Johnson, supra, principally off......
-
Jones v. State, 77-719
...Defendant nonetheless contends that this court's decision in Johnson v. State, 249 So.2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), Cert. dischgd., 280 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973), controls the instant situation. In Johnson, the particular bullet which had killed the victim was unavailable to the defense. This court......
-
Peek v. State
...(1963); Barnard v. Henderson, 514 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1975); Johnson v. State, 249 So.2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged 280 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1973), such a right, like most others, may be waived. In this case appellant made demand for discovery of reports and results of scientific te......
-
Louissaint v. State, 89-1803
...Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Johnson v. State, 249 So.2d 470 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971), cert. dismissed, 280 So.2d 673 (Fla.1973). of the chemist's testimony. The state urges that a "bad faith" standard, rather than a "negligent" standard should be used when eviden......