ALVIN MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant was convicted after a bench trial of battery of a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest without violence. The appellate court reversed, holding that a defendant has a right to compel production of written statements made by police officers who are actual eyewitnesses to the crime, even though police reports are generally not public documents.
A defendant in a criminal case has a right to access written statements of police officers who are actual eyewitnesses to or victims of the crime charged, even though police reports generally are not public documents open to inspection. Where such statements are essential to the elements of proof and used by witnesses to refresh their memories, the prosecution must produce them unless the trial court excises confidential or sensitive material in an in camera proceeding.
[1] A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to access written statements of witnesses in the state's possession, particularly when those statements pertain to essential el…
[2] A police report containing written statements of eyewitness officers is discoverable by the defendant, notwithstanding prior holdings that police reports are not public d…
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“our decision in Glow should not be read as placing a written statement of an eyewitness or victim to an alleged crime beyond the reach of a defendant simply because the witness is a police officer”
Establishes the core holding that police officer eyewitness statements must be discoverable despite the general rule that police reports are not public documents
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Alvin Miller was charged with battery of a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest without violence and tried before the court without …
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 Refreshing Recollection cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.
Appellant Alvin Miller was found guilty after non jury trial of the offenses of battery of a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest without violence. Appellant was placed on probation for a period of three years on the battery charge and one year on the charge of resisting arrest, to run concurrently.
The sole point raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred in entering an order denying appellant’s motion to compel production of statements made by police officers who witnessed the crime. The motion was filed pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(a)(1)(H) which requires the prosecutor in a criminal action to disclose the statements of all persons known to him to have information relevant to the offense charged. Appellant sought to compel the state to produce the police report concerning these offenses or a copy of the written statements of six police officers and a police intern of the St. Petersburg Police Department, all of whom allegedly witnessed the offenses charged. Two of the officers, Lightfield and Sullivan, each testified that he had made a written statement as part of the police report detailing his observations with respect to the charges that had been filed against appellant and that he intended to use the police report to refresh his memory at trial. None of the other alleged witnesses to the incident made a written statement regarding the incident. At trial Officers Lightfield and Sullivan testified that they had previously reviewed their police reports.
The state contends that on the authority of this court’s decision in Glow v. State, 319 So. 2d 47 (1975) we should affirm the trial court’s ruling. In Glow we held that police reports are not public documents open to inspection. However, our decision in Glow should not be read as placing a written statement of an eyewitness or victim to an alleged crime beyond the reach of a defendant simply because the witness is a police officer. Certainly a defendant in a criminal case should have access to the written statements of witnesses in possession of the state particularly where, as in this case, they pertain to essential elements of proof and are used by witnesses to refresh their memories before taking the witness stand. See State v. Johnson, 284 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1973); State v. Latimore, 284 So. 2d 423 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).
The instances where police officers are actual eyewitnesses to or victims of the crime charged and write their observations in a police report are infrequent. Requiring the prosecution to supply that portion of the police report is not an undue burden. Where the report otherwise includes confidential or sensitive material it can be excised by the trial court in an in camera proceeding.
Accordingly, the judgments are reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McArthur Breedlove v. State, 413 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1982)…State, 383 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Damas v. State, 363 So. 2d 568 (Fla. [*5] 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1979); Pitts v. State, 362 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1979); Miller v. State, 360 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); State v. Latimore, 284 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); State v. Gillespie,4 227 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). The material in the instant reports does not comprise “statements” because the r…
-
State v. Dumas, 363 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ative reports which [1] do not quote a person under CrPR 3.220(a)(l)(ii) directly and [2] never are signed or shown to that person are not statements within CrPR 3.220(a)(l)(ii) and thus are not subject to discovery thereunder.” In Miller v. State, 360 So. 2d 46 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) the court reversed a criminal conviction on the ground that the trial court had erred in denying discovery production to the defendant upon proper demand of certain police reports written and signed by persons [policemen] who witne…
-
Downing v. State, 536 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1988)…y or are not signed or shown to that person are not statements within the meaning of the rule so as to be subject to discovery. State v. Latimore, 284 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 291 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974). However, in Miller v. State, 360 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), the court recognized that police reports could constitute statements of the police officers themselves and held them to be discoverable when the officers making the reports were actual eyewitnesses to or victims of the crime char…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 284 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Latimore, 284 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Glow v. State, 319 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)