State v. Kuntsman, 94-1269
Decision Date | 12 October 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 94-1269,94-1269 |
Citation | 643 So.2d 1172 |
Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2161 The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Christopher KUNTSMAN, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joni Braunstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Scott Sakin; Max P. Engel; James H. Woodard, Miami, for respondents.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and LEVY, JJ.
We grant the State's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quash the trial court's order compelling prosecution witnesses to view an array of photographs and then be questioned about those photographs during the course of criminal depositions.
The State filed an Information charging five defendants collectively, and as principals, with one count of armed robbery, two counts of burglary of a conveyance with assault, two counts of aggravated battery, and one count of criminal mischief. Attorneys for the defendants deposed one of the victims. Because four out of the five defendants had similar appearances, the victim distinguished them during the deposition based on their hair color and clothing. In an attempt to have the victim identify the criminal actions taken by each defendant, defense counsel requested the victim to view a photo array. This array consisted of thirty-eight black and white photographs, and included only four photos of the defendants. The State objected to the use of the photo array, and the victim refused to view or answer questions concerning the array. Defense counsel then certified the question. Following a hearing, the trial judge entered an order requiring all of the prosecution witnesses to view and respond to questions concerning the photo array. The State now petitions this Court for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the trial court's order.
The criminal discovery process is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. Furthermore, it is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to grant or limit criminal discovery. Gray v. State, 640 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Baker v. State, 526 So.2d 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). However, Rule 3.220 does not provide a trial judge with the authority to compel a witness to perform any type of involuntary physical examination. State v. Smith, 260 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla.1972) ( ). In Smith, the Supreme Court noted that only in "rare instance[s]" would a trial court have the authority to order an involuntary examination of a witness. Smith, 260 So.2d at 490 ( ). Subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision in Smith, the District Courts have recognized a trial court's authority to order an involuntary examination of a prosecution witness, but have limited the exercise of that authority to situations where strong and compelling reasons exist. See State v. Camejo, 641 So.2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) ( ), question certified on reh'g, 641 So.2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Bartlett v. Hamwi, 626 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ( ); State v. LeBlanc, 558 So.2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ( ); State v. Diamond, 553 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ( ); State v. Coe, 521 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) ( ).
We recognize that the case before us, unlike many of the foregoing cases, does not involve the type of physical examination that implicates an individual's privacy right to be free from bodily intrusion. Nevertheless, the same rationale that applies to the involuntary physical examination cases has also been applied to cases where the trial court has ordered a victim to appear and participate at a live line-up. See State v. Ray, 604 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA) (, )rev. denied, 613 So.2d 8 (Fla.1992); see also State v. Cobb, 619 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) ( )(citing Ray, 604 So.2d at 1249). In Ray, the Fourth District reasoned that a criminal defendant's right to discovery and confrontation does not entitle the defendant to compel a prosecution witness to undergo an involuntary examination of any sort, absent a showing that strong or compelling reasons exist to warrant such a remedy. Ray, 604 So.2d at 1250. Consequently, we hold that the trial judge in the instant case was not authorized to compel the prosecution witnesses to view the photo array, absent a showing by the defendants that strong or compelling reasons justified the order.
The defendants herein did not demonstrate any strong or compelling circumstances which would justify the trial court's discovery order. The main reason asserted by the defendants in support of the order was their need to determine the specific allegations made by the prosecution's eyewitnesses against each defendant. That goal is achieved, however, by the taking of the deposition itself. Therefore, because the defendants did not present the trial court with a strong or compelling reason, the trial judge erred in ordering the prosecution witnesses to view the photo array.
The trial court's order also contravenes the purpose and intent of the criminal discovery rules. The purpose of criminal discovery is "to avail the defense of evidence known...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wooten, 4D18-2636
...abuse of discretion. "[I]t is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to grant or limit criminal discovery." State v. Kuntsman , 643 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). "[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exerc......
-
Reed v. State
...alleged to have been committed by defendants, to be examined for visual acuity by specified physician prior to trial); State v. Kuntsman, 643 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering prosecution witnesses to view array o......
-
State v. Clay
...cases grant the opposing party a recess or a continuance.4 The State in its brief directs our attention to State v. Kuntsman, 643 So.2d 1172, 1174 (Fla.App.1994), to additionally support its argument that Clay has no right to discovery for the purposes of creating evidence. Although not pre......
-
Clark v. Com.
...is necessary to protect a defendant's rights and the examination can be conducted without unusual harm to a victim"); State v. Kuntsrnan, 643 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla .Dist.CLApp.1994) (Court of Appeals for the Third District noting that Florida's "District Courts [of Appeal] have recognized a......