GERARD RON BOOKER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 applies to the penalty phase of a capital case, allowing reciprocal discovery.
[1] The phrase "at the trial or hearing" in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1)(A) includes the sentencing phase of a capital case.
[2] Reciprocal discovery rules apply to both the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case.
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 intelligenceThe defendant, having pled guilty to first-degree murder, sought certiorari review of an order compelling reciprocal discovery during the penalty phas…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.220 cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Booker, having previously pled guilty to first degree murder, seeks certiorari review of an order compelling reciprocal discovery during the penalty phase of the case. He contends the discovery rules outlined in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 apply only to the trial stage of a capital case.
In Maxwell v. State, 443 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1983), the Florida Supreme Court, in upholding a death sentence, found that a trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion seeking discovery of witnesses and tangible papers or objects to be used at the sentencing hearing, which motion was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a), did not constitute “prejudicial error.” This finding implied that denial of the motion was error, but that the error did not prejudice defendant so as to warrant reversal of the sentence.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1)(A) obligates a participating defendant to furnish the prosecutor with a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant expects to call “at the trial or hearing.” The phrase “or hearing” should be interpreted to include sentencing. In a capital case, the penalty phase is similar to the guilt phase in that evidence is presented before the jury, sometimes even expert testimony. Defense expert witnesses in the penalty phase are often deposed by the state prior to sentencing in capital cases. See, e.g., Gore v. State, 614 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Discovery helps the state in preparing for cross-examination and in deciding whether to obtain its own expert witnesses. Discovery also helps the defense in preparing a response to the state’s evidence of aggravating factors. To minimize surprise, Florida’s criminal procedure permits extensive discovery. The defendant in the instant case elected to participate in discovery, and we believe the rules allow reciprocal discovery in the trial and penalty phases of a capital case. Accordingly, we deny the instant petition for certiorari review.
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sexton v. State, 643 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…rs pertaining to the penalty phase of this capital case. He essentially contends that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 does not apply to the penalty phase of a trial. We disagree and concur with our sister court’s holding in Booker v. State, 634 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Petition denied. DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Clark, 644 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ery provisions of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. The state then filed a motion to compel the respondent to furnish a list of witnesses he intended to call at the penalty phase of the trial. The state relied principally on Booker v. State, 634 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), for the proposition that rule 3.220 applies to the penalty phase of a capital ease. The respondent resisted the motion, contending that the reciprocal discovery provisions of the rule did not entitle the state to penalty phase w…
-
Bailey v. State, 100 So. 3d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…criminal proceedings, applies to guilt and penalty phase proceedings. Abdool v. State, 53 So. 3d 208, 219-20 (Fla.2010); State v. Clark, 644 So. 2d 556, 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Sexton v. State, 643 So. 2d 53, 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Booker v. State, 634 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The rule requires disclosure of “reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons” provided t…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maxwell v. State, 443 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1983)
- City OF Miami v. Thomas, 614 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Gore v. State, 614 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)