THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
MARVIN LEWIS MCCALL, 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.
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court order requiring the state to produce transcribed statements of prosecution witnesses for the defendant's inspection and copying. The appellate court held that absent exceptional circumstances or statutory authorization, witness statements are not subject to discovery in criminal cases under Florida law.
The court held that witness statements are not ordinarily a proper subject of discovery in criminal cases under Florida law. Absent exceptional circumstances or a showing that the case presents unusual circumstances, a trial court lacks authority to order such production.
“in the absence of a controlling statute the cases generally hold that the defendant's counsel is not entitled to a transcript of the testimony of state witnesses taken before a prosecuting officer preparatory to trial”
Establishes the foundational rule that witness discovery is not permitted without statutory authorization
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarvin Lewis McCall was charged with rape. The trial court ordered the state to produce transcribed statements of witnesses the state intended to call…
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 Criminal Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon petition for common law certiorari the petitioner seeks review of an order of the Honorable Hal P. Dekle as Circuit Judge ordering the state to produce for respondent’s inspection and copying all transcribed statements in the possession of the state of witnesses whom the state intends to call at the trial or who have given transcribed statements pertaining to the trial wherein the respondent is charged with rape. We find that the remedy by appeal would be inadequate, grant certiorari and quash the order.
The respondent has stated in his brief that his reason for asking for production of these statements was to effectively prepare for trial and discover any possibility of the state having interviewed witnesses under oath who would cast doubt upon the credibility of the victim and her brother’s testimony. Respondent contends that refusal to supply the statements violates his right to the effective assistance of counsel in preparation for trial and that the suppression *325of evidence favorable to him violates due process.1
In McAden v. State, 155 Fla. 523, 529, 21 So.2d 33, 36 (1945), our Supreme Court found from a review of the authorities that in the absence of a controlling statute the cases generally hold that the defendant’s counsel is not entitled to a transcript of the testimony of state witnesses taken before a prosecuting officer preparatory to trial. The Second District in State v. Lampp, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 10, 12, stated that “Unless introduced by appropriate legislation, the doctrine of discovery is a complete and utter stranger to criminal proceedings.”
Section 909.18, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which was transferred to § 925.04, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., provides that when a crime has been committed and the evidence of the state relates to certain enumerated items of tangible property, the trial court may order that the prosecution furnish said items for inspection, copying or photographing by the accused. However, this statute does not apply to oral confessions of the defendant or to a transcript of testimony of state witnesses,2 or to material which cannot be considered substantive evidence but is clearly the work product of the prosecuting attorney.3 The Legislature in 1963, enacted what is now § 925.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. which requires that the prosecution permit the defense to inspect and copy written or recorded statements or confessions whether signed or unsigned by the defendant.
The attorney general in an opinion 4 concerning § 925.05, supra, concluded that the statements and confessions used in the above section are limited to those made by the defendant. Following this, the Second District found that “neither the legislature nor the Supreme Court has seen fit to enact a statute or adopt a rule of court granting criminal defendants the additional right to inspect prior to trial statements given by prospective witnesses for the state.” 5 Although that court doubted whether a trial court has authority, power or jurisdiction to grant or enforce relief of the kind sought in this case under any circumstances it left the question open, stating “for if the power exists at all, this case is not within it.” 6
Respondent’s motion for production of statements is a general demand for production, inspection and copying as a matter of right and contains no allegation that his is an exceptional case or there are unusual circumstances which demand production.
We have, therefore, determined that the facts of this case are not sufficient to justify an exception to the rule that statements of witnesses are not ordinarily the proper subject of discovery and conclude that the order in question departs so far from the established practice and the public policy of this state that certiorari is granted and the subject order is quashed.7
PEARSON, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sylvia v. State, 210 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…n when they were not being used by the witness to refresh his recollection. Whitaker v. Blackburn, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 794; Bedami v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 284; Jackman v. State, Fla.App.1962, 140 So. 2d 627; State v. McCall, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 324; Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322; Lambert v. United States, 5th Cir.1958, 261 F. 2d 799. Therefore, examining the errors raised by the appellants, we find no reason to upset the guilty verdict returned against ea…
-
Colebrook v. State, 205 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…e witnesses taken by the prosecution in the course of preparation for trial unless they were taken before a magistrate or used by the prosecution at trial.” Accord McAden v. State, 155 Fla. 523, 21 So. 2d 33 (1945) and State v. McCall, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 324. In the instant case the motion was for the production of all statements made to the police and to the State’s attorney’s office by three of the witnesses who testified at the trial. There is no showing, in this record, that any of these statements…
-
Scott v. State, 207 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ithholding of production to defense counsel of the police report has been settled adversely to defendant in several cases: McAden v. State, 1945, 155 Fla. 523, 21 So. 2d 33; State v. Lampp, Fla.App.1963, 155 So. 2d 10; State v. McCall, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 324. As to the instructions on excusable homicide, F.S. § 782.03, F.S.A. provides that— “Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune * * * upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unu…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1958)
- Ivory Lee Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826 (Fla. 1940)
- McAden v. State, 155 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1945)
- Peel v. State, 154 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- State v. Shouse, 177 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- State v. Lampp, 155 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Ezzell v. State, 88 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1956)