THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
D.R., A JUVENILE, J.W., A JUVENILE, E.E., A JUVENILE, AND R.S., A JUVENILE, RESPONDENTS
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 sought a writ of certiorari to challenge a trial court's denial of its motion for a protective order against subpoenas duces tecum issued without leave of court in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order, holding that subpoenas duces tecum in delinquency proceedings require prior court approval, just as they do in criminal cases.
The court held that subpoenas duces tecum are not permitted in juvenile delinquency proceedings without leave of court. Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.060(d) is nearly identical to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h), and the same construction applied to the criminal rule—requiring prior court approval—must apply to the juvenile rule.
[1] Subpoenas duces tecum are not permitted in criminal matters without leave of court.
[2] The construction of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 regarding subpoenas duces tecum applies to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.060(d) in delinquency proceed…
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“Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.060(d), governing depositions in delinquency proceedings is almost identical to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h). As such, the same construction given Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 should apply to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.060.”
Establishes the key principle that the same rule governing subpoenas duces tecum in criminal cases applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents' attorneys issued subpoenas and notices for depositions of witnesses in pending juvenile delinquency proceedings without obtaining leave o…
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 Leave Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
We grant the State’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quash the trial court’s orders denying the State’s motion for a protective order. Each of the Respondents are currently involved in delinquency proceedings pending in the juvenile division. Respondents’ attorneys issued subpoenas and notices of the taking of the depositions of certain witnesses. These notices and subpoenas inform the deponent that he is to bring various evidence relating to the case to the deposition. The Respondents did not obtain leave of court before the subpoenas were issued. The State filed a motion for protective order, asking the trial court to quash the subpoenas and notices because they were illegal subpoenas duces tecum. The trial court entered written orders denying the State’s motion.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.220 governs discovery depositions in criminal matters. In Heath v. Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1976), the Supreme Court of Florida approved a construction of Rule 3.220 that subpoenas duces tecum are not permitted in a criminal matter without leave of court. Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.060(d), governing depositions in delinquency proceedings is almost identical to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h). As such, the same construction given Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 should apply to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.060. Under such construction, the subpoenas duces tecum in the instant case should not have issued without leave of court.1
Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion and departed from the essential requirements of the law by denying the State’s motion for a protective order. We therefore grant the State’s Petition for Certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. Certiorari granted; order quashed.
. We reject the assertion by Respondents' counsel that a subpoena duces tecum was not issued because the notices of taking deposition and witness subpoenas only “requested’' that the deponents “[p]lease bring” the stated materials. The legal verbiage of compulsion under penalty of contempt found throughout the subpoena renders this argument without merit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.H. v. State, 151 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ure 3.220(b)(1)(A). However, as rule 3.220(b)(1)(A) and rule 8.060(2)(A), which both categorize witnesses as either A, B, or C witnesses, are materially identical, the same construction of rule 3.220 should be given to rule 8.060. See State v. D.R., 701 So. 2d 120, 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). . As we have concluded that reversal is warranted, we need not address the remaining issues raised by M.H.…
Authorities Cited
- Heath v. Wada Sue Becktell, 327 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1976)