STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
MICHAEL R. JACKSON
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 of Florida petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's order denying the State's motion to compel production of evidence from the defense. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the trial court's order did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
No, the trial court's denial of the State's motion did not depart from the essential requirements of law. The denial is consistent with Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding a defendant's discovery obligations and work product privilege.
[1] Work product privilege under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.220(g) protects materials in a defendant's possession or control, including DNA analysis and the identi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Certiorari relief is appropriate only when an order departs from the essential requirements of the law and causes material injury to the petitioner that cannot be remedied on appeal.”
Establishes the standard for granting a writ of certiorari.
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 sought production of a fire extinguisher from the defense, which had been transferred to the defense for DNA analysis. The defense had previ…
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 of Florida petitions for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court denying the State’s motion for production. We deny the petition.
Certiorari relief is appropriate only when an order departs from the essential requirements of the law and causes material injury to the petitioner that cannot be remedied on appeal. See Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 1987); Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So. 2d 1067, 1071–72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). A writ of certiorari should be granted “only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 96 (Fla. 1983).
Below, the State sought swabs of a fire extinguisher made by a DNA analyst hired by the defense as well as the identity of the analyst. The State theorizes that the fire extinguisher was used by the Respondent as a weapon in the commission of a crime. The fire extinguisher had been in the State’s possession for some time before it was transferred to the defense for analysis. The defense first sought to compel the State to conduct DNA testing on the fire extinguisher and only sought production of the fire extinguisher after the State refused to conduct its own testing. After the fire extinguisher was returned to the State, the State then sought production from the defense of the matters noted.
The trial court denied the motion to compel production. Here, the State has not shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in so ruling. In fact, the trial court’s denial of relief is consistent with rule 3.220(d)(1)(B) and 3.220(g), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding a defendant’s discovery obligations for “material that is in the defendant’s possession or control” and establishing a work product privilege. None of the authorities cited to this court by the State are applicable, and thus, fail to establish a violation of a clearly established principle of law. Combs, 436 So. 2d at 96.
Therefore, the petition is DENIED. MAKAR, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)