STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
EARL CASPERSON MEGGISON, SR., 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 Florida District Court of Appeal held that a criminal defendant who made a written discovery demand through prior counsel remains bound by that demand and must comply with reciprocal discovery obligations even after obtaining new counsel. The court rejected the defendant's argument that changing attorneys released him from discovery obligations.
Once a defendant makes a written demand for discovery, he is committed to the disclosure process and must reciprocate by making disclosures to the prosecution. A defendant cannot avoid reciprocal disclosure obligations by changing counsel. The obligation exists throughout the case until final adjudication.
[1] A defendant who makes a written demand for discovery in a criminal case is committed to the disclosure process and must reciprocate by making disclosures to the prosecuti…
[2] A defendant cannot avoid a reciprocal discovery obligation by changing counsel.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Once a defendant makes a written demand for discovery, he is committed to the disclosure process and must reciprocate by making disclosures to the prosecution as required by the rule.”
States the core holding that discovery demands create binding obligations requiring reciprocal disclosure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe respondent was a criminal defendant who, through his attorney, made a written demand for discovery under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(…
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.
COWART, Judge.
The respondent, as the defendant in a criminal case, acting through his attorney, made a written demand for discovery, the result of which was to require the State, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a), to disclose much information the State would otherwise not be required to .disclose throughout the first jury trial and, after a mistrial was declared, throughout the second jury trial. The convictions resulting at the second jury trial have been reversed and the case remanded for a third trial. At this point, respondent has obtained new counsel who argues that he is not bound by respondent’s prior counsel’s demand for discovery and is not bound to make reciprocal discovery under Rule 3.220(b). The trial court ruled that the respondent and his present counsel were not bound by the prior counsel’s demand for discovery. The State petitions for writ of certiorari on the ground that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law.
We agree with the State and issue the writ. Once a defendant makes a written demand for discovery, he is committed to the disclosure process and must reciprocate by making disclosures to the prosecution as required by the rule. A defendant cannot avoid his reciprocal disclosure obligation by changing counsel. The obligation exists throughout the case. A criminal case as to the same charge is one case in trial and on appeal and during the successive trials and appeals, until there is a final adjudication in the case. The trial court’s ruling that the respondent is not now bound by his prior counsel’s demand for discovery is quashed and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
WRIT GRANTED; CAUSE REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Post-Newsweek Stations Fla., Inc., 837 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…ule 3.220(a). Given the unequivocal language of section 119.011, I believe that the trial court correctly concluded that Carol-lo’s Discovery Notice triggered the State’s obligation to provide these materials to Post-Newsweek. See State v. Meggison, 556 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (once a criminal defendant makes a written demand for discovery the state is required, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a), to disclose information the State would otherwise not be required to disclose). To rule, a…
-
State v. Boggess, 698 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…of Certiorari and quash the order on review. “Once a defendant makes a written demand for discovery, he is committed to the disclosure process and must reciprocate by making disclosures to the prosecution as required by the rule.” State v. Meggison, 556 So. 2d 816, 816 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Petition granted; order quashed.…