STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANCESCO HENRY PELLICCIO, A/K/A FRANK HIALEAH, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State sought to prevent a trial court from excluding a witness from testifying after the witness repeatedly refused to answer deposition questions despite a court order. The appellate court held that a witness cannot selectively refuse to answer deposition questions absent a recognized privilege, and therefore upheld the exclusion of the witness from trial.
A witness on deposition cannot pick and choose which questions to answer absent a recognized privilege, and the trial court properly excluded the witness from testifying. The source of the instruction not to answer is immaterial; what matters is the witness's refusal to answer court-ordered questions.
[1] A witness in a deposition may not refuse to answer questions absent a recognized privilege.
[2] A witness's refusal to answer deposition questions, rather than the source of the instruction not to answer, is material to the court's decision.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a witness on deposition may not pick and choose with immunity what questions he wishes to answer, absent any recognized privilege”
Establishes the core holding that witnesses cannot selectively refuse to answer deposition questions without a valid privilege.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State's witness in a loansharking case was deposed on multiple occasions. During the depositions, the witness refused to answer questions about ce…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discovery Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State has filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s pre-trial order excluding the State’s essential witness from testifying in the trial of this loansharking case.
The witness was deposed on two different days, once for two hours and again for several hours. During the deposition he refused, on his own, to answer any questions about certain individuals. In addition, the assistant state attorney instructed him not to answer certain questions. After the questions were certified, the trial court entered an order on respondent’s motion to compel, granting some and denying others. The State did not seek review by certiorari of the trial court’s order compelling the witness to answer certain questions.
The witness’ deposition was then taken again for the purpose of asking him the questions the trial court had ordered to be answered, and the witness continued to refuse to answer ten of the thirteen ques tions. On some occasions at this deposition the instruction not to answer was given to the witness by an attorney with the Justice Department, not the assistant state attorney. On others, the latter instructed the witness not to answer and announced he was doing so at the request of the federal government.
We are of the opinion that the relief sought is not warranted because a witness on deposition may not pick and choose with immunity what questions he wishes to answer, absent any recognized privilege. The State contends that the federal government, not the State, was the source of the instruction not to answer, the witness being in the federal government’s protective program. Therefore, the State.argues that it should not be penalized. Again, we point out the original decisions not to answer were made by the witness or the assistant state attorney, and the Justice Department exercised authority only at the last deposition. Moreover, it is the witness’ refusal to answer, not the source of his instruction, which we find to be material.
The State next argues that the defendant was not prejudiced by the witness’ refusal to answer and that the exclusion of the essential witness will penalize the public unnecessarily. In our opinion the public would suffer a substantially greater loss were we to permit a witness or party to dictate to the trial judge what questions the witness will answer on deposition. Accordingly, we hold the trial court was correct in excluding the witness from testifying at the trial of this cause. The petition is denied.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
MOORE, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.