JERRY ANTONE TYSON, 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.
Jerry Tyson sought certiorari review of a trial court order permitting the State to subpoena his medical records in a capital murder prosecution. The appellate court agreed that the State failed to demonstrate relevancy and quashed the order, holding that the State must show a compelling interest and relevancy before compelling disclosure of confidential medical records.
The court held that before the State can compel disclosure of confidential medical records, it must demonstrate both relevancy and a compelling state interest in the disclosure. Since the medical records had no nexus to any element of the charged offense and the defendant was not asserting any mental health defense, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by permitting the subpoena.
[1] Certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to review an interlocutory order requiring the production of confidential medical records, as wrongful disclosure would cause irrepa…
[2] A patient's constitutional right to privacy in medical records can be overcome only if the State proves a compelling interest in disclosure.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Before the State can employ its investigative subpoena power and compel the disclosure of medical records without the consent of the patient, the State "has the obligation and the burden to show the relevancy of the records requested."”
Establishes the primary burden on the State to demonstrate relevancy of medical records before they can be subpoenaed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTyson was arrested and charged with first-degree felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon in connection with a stabbing death at a McDonald's. H…
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 Williams Rule Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, Jerry Antone Tyson, seeks certiorari review of an order permitting the State to subpoena Tyson’s medical records. Tyson contends that the order departed from the essential requirements of law, as his records have no relevance to any issue in the prosecution below. We agree and quash the trial court’s order.
Tyson was arrested and charged by indictment for first-degree felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon based upon a botched robbery and stabbing death of a fifty-two-year-old disabled man at a McDonald’s restaurant. Tyson was previously convicted of manslaughter and had a long history of mental illness. The State sought to subpoena his medical records — some of which are over seventeen years old — from various entities including the Orange and Osceola County jails and the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee. Tyson objected, arguing his medical records were wholly irrelevant to the ongoing criminal investigation because he was not participating in discovery nor was he seeking a competency determination or asserting an insanity defense. The State contends that it is seeking the death penalty and that the medical records might reveal prior bad acts that may constitute Williams1 rule evidence.
Certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to review an interlocutory order re*445quiring the production of confidential medical records. Hunter v. State, 639 So.2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also State v. Isaac, 696 So.2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Before the State can employ its investigative subpoena power and compel the disclosure of medical records without the consent of the patient, the State “has the obligation and the burden to show the relevancy of the records requested.” Hunter, 639 So.2d at 74. Relevant evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove a material fact. Id. (citing Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 90.401 (1992 ed.)). The State’s burden arises from Tyson’s constitutional right to privacy in his medical information, which requires the State to demonstrate a compelling interest in the disclosure. See Cerroni v. State, 823 So.2d 150, 151-52 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also State v. Rivers, 787 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Such [a compelling state] interest exists where there is a reasonable founded suspicion that the materials contain information relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.”).
In the case below, the State did not present evidence to establish relevancy. As set forth by defense counsel, Tyson’s medical records do not relate to any element of the charged offense. Tyson is not engaging in any reciprocal discovery. Furthermore, the defense has not injected any mental health defense into the proceeding-Tyson is not relying on an insanity defense nor is he seeking to present mental health mitigation evidence during the penalty phase. Since there is no nexus between the criminal prosecution and Tyson’s medical records, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in permitting the State to subpoena all of Tyson’s medical records. To allow disclosure of non-discoverable, mental health records would cause irreparable harm from which Tyson has no adequate remedy on appeal. Ireland v. Francis, 945 So.2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order that permitted the State to subpoena Tyson’s medical records.
•GRANT PETITION, QUASH ORDER.
GRIFFIN, JACOBUS and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gomillion v. State, 267 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…operly invoked in this case. See, e.g., Faber v. State, 157 So. 3d 429, 431 (Fla. 2d - 6 - DCA 2015) (granting a certiorari petition where the trial court allowed disclosure of medical records in response to the State's request); Tyson v. State, 114 So. 3d 443, 444-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ("Certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to review an interlocutory order requiring the production of confidential medical records."). Turning to whether the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements o…
-
Faber v. State, 157 So. 3d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…mitting the State to subpoena all of [the defendant’s] medical records. To allow disclosure of [non[ discoverable], mental health records would cause irreparable .harm from which [the defendant] has no adequate remedy on appeal.” See Tyson v. State, 114 So. 3d 443, 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the order to the extent it allows the discovery. We note that at least some portion of the relevancy issues addressed by this opinion may become moot if Faber files notice in the…
-
Barahona v. State, 172 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…is a clear connection between illegal activity and the person whose privacy has allegedly been invaded.” State v. Johnson, 814 So. 2d 390, 393 (Fla.2002). In the present case, however, there is no such “clear connection.” Here, as in Tyson v. State, 114 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), the movant has not met its burden to demonstrate the relevancy of the records requested. Ms. Barahona has not alleged, much less demonstrated, how any of Mr. Barahona’s hospital records would relate to the separate case against…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Hunter v. State, 639 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- State v. Rivers, 787 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Cerroni v. State, 823 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- State v. Isaac, 696 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Ireland v. Francis, 945 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)