Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

699 So. 2d 294

Cabral v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 12, 1997

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-09-12

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1999

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(a) Notice of Discovery. After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and serving on the prosecuting attorney a "Notice of Discovery" which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to all discovery procedures contained in these rules. Participation by a defendant in the discovery process, including the taking of any deposition by a defendant or the filing of a public records request under chapter 119, Florida Statutes for nonexempt law enforcement records relating to the defendant's pending prosecution, shall be an election to participate in discovery and triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant. If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a codefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 745 So. 2d 319 - Henderson v. State

“[B]ut for the release to the codefendant, the records would not have been available to Cabral under a public records request. We believe that the action of one defendant in requesting reciprocal discovery and a codefendant seeking the same records pursuant to chapter 119 is nothing less than "knowingly and purposely" sharing in the discovery obtained by a codefendant under the rule and that the trial court was right in so determining.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 745 So. 2d 319 - Henderson v. State

Relies on 612 So. 2d 549 - Post-Newsweek Stations v. Doe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-09-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

HARRIS, Judge.

¶2We grant clarification of our previous denial of certiorari because, on reflection, we agree that some explanation is in order. However, we continue to decline to grant certiorari.

¶3Carlo Cabral and Jason Thomas were indicted for first degree murder. Thomas filed the proper notice under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 and received discovery of the State’s file. Thereafter, on behalf of Cabral, a public records demand for disclosure of the State’s file pursuant to Chapter 119 was made. The State made the necessary disclosure but asked the trial court to compel Cabral to submit to reciprocal discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. The court granted the State’s request and Cabral seeks certiorari asking us to reverse that order.

¶4*295Cabral takes the position that the public records disclosure requirement is independent of the criminal discovery rules and since he chose to proceed under the public records law and not the rules, he should not be required to submit to disclosure.

¶5The State, on the other hand, submits that the criminal rule is so designed that Cabral may not eat his cake and have it too. The rule provides: “If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a eodefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.” See Rule 3.220(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State’s ■ prosecution files would normally be exempt from discovery under the public records law so long as such file is reasonably related to a pending prosecution or appeal. In this ease, once the State released its file based on the codefendant request, it considered the released records as public records within Chapter 119. See Post-Newsweek Stations v. Doe, 612 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla.1992). However, but for the release to the codefendant, the records would-not have been available to Cabral under a public records request. See sections 119.011(3)(d)2, 119.07(3)(b), and 119.011(3)(e)5, Florida Statutes (1995). We believe thát 'the action of'one defendant in requesting reciprocal discovery and a code-fendant seeking the same records pursuant to Chapter 119 is nothing less than “knowingly and purposely” sharing in the 'discovery obtained by a codefendant under the rule and that the trial court was right in so determining.

¶6CERTIORARI DENIED.

COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
/699/so2d/294 · .json · Public domain