THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
GLENN BATTLE, 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 appealed a trial court order denying the state access to a criminal defendant for psychiatric examination. The appellate court held that Florida's criminal procedure rules require that when a defendant raises an insanity defense and court-appointed psychiatrists examine the defendant, the state must be granted access to the defendant for examination by state-retained expert witnesses.
Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.210(c) requires that the state be granted access to the defendant for examination by state-retained expert witnesses who will testify at trial. The plain language of the rule binds both trial and appellate courts and does not permit denial of such access, though the trial court retains discretion regarding the number of psychiatrists and occasions for access.
[1] When a defendant raises the defense of insanity, the State is entitled to have its privately retained psychiatrists examine the defendant.
[2] A trial court's denial of the State's motion for access to a defendant for examination by State-retained psychiatrists, after the defendant has raised the insanity defens…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We find no intelligent way to interpret this rule other than to require that an expert witness to be called by the State to testify at the trial be granted access to the defendant.”
States the court's interpretation of Rule 3.210(c) requiring the state access to the defendant for expert examination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant raised an insanity defense in a criminal case. Pursuant to the defendant's notice of intent to rely upon the insanity defense, the trial…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
Petition for certiorari has been filed in this court by the State of Florida seeking review of the following order of the trial court.
“The Court makes the following finding of facts in regard to the State’s motion for access to the Defendant by State retained psychiatrists:
a. The Defendant has raised the defense of insanity
b. Pursuant to the Defendant’s notice of intent to rely upon insanity, the Court has appointed three psychiatrists to examine the Defendant.
“The State’s motion is hereby denied.”
The State contends that the court’s order is in violation of 3.210(c), CrPR, which reads in part as follows:
“The appointment of experts by the court shall not preclude the State or defendant from calling expert witnesses to testify at the trial and in case the defendant is committed to custody by the court they shall be permitted to have free access to the defendant for purposes of examination or observation. The experts appointed by the court shall be summoned to testify at the trial and may be examined by the court and by counsel for the State and the deféndant.”
We find no intelligent way to interpret this rule other than to require that an expert witness to be called by the State to testify at the trial be granted access to the defendant. The plain language of the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida are binding upon the trial and appellate courts. See State v. Lott, Fla. 1973, 286 So. 2d 565 and Ser-Nestler, Inc. v. General Finance Loan Company of Miami Northwest, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 230.
We must deal with one other factor revealed by this record. Subsequent to the filing of petition for certiorari, the trial court vacated the order for which review was sought but by the same order reiterated the original ruling. It is clear that this was not done to divest this court of jurisdiction but to correct language in the order. We therefore decline to dismiss the petition as suggested by the respondent.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the court’s order dated June 27, 1974, and the court’s order in this cause dated July 31, 1974, are quashed with directions to enter an order granting State’s motion for access to the defendant by the State’s privately retained psychiatrist. We do not mean by this order to limit the court’s discretion in governing the number of psychiatrists or occasion for their access to the defendant.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Norma Jean Hill v. HCA Health Servs. OF Fla., Inc., 582 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…se a supreme court rule addresses the question and plainly provides that a creditor must establish absence of actual knowledge in order to be entitled to file his Pope claim. We are required to follow the plain language of the rule. State v. Battle, 302 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Lott, 286 So. 2d 565 (FIa.1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 913, 94 S.Ct. 2613, 41 L.Ed.2d 217 (1974); and Kinsey v. State, 179 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).…
-
Joyce Lee Holton et ux. v. Atl. Dep't Stores, Inc., 337 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1976)…ion for rehearing we granted certiorari and set the cause for oral argument. After hearing argument of the parties and reviewing the briefs we are of the opinion that certiorari should not have been granted. The writ is hereby discharged, Fla. App., 302 So. 2d 782. It is so ordered. OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND and HATCH-ETT, JJ., concur. SUNDBERG, J., dissents.…
-
Hopkins v. Barad, 380 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…to require a speedy trial on demand upon an objective showing that the defendant is “really” ready for trial.1 Unless and until the rule is changed, the courts are bound by its clear terms. State v. Lott, 286 So. 2d 565 (Fla.1973); State v. Battle, 302 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Petition denied; rule nisi discharged. . Hopkins relies only on the rules of criminal procedure and presents no claim either that they are invalid as applied to his situation or that he is entitled to discharge because of a vio…
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
- State v. Lott, 286 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1973)
- Ser-Nestler, Inc. v. Gen. Fin. Loan Co. OF Miami Nw., 167 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)