CARLO CABRAL, 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.
Cabral sought certiorari to reverse an order requiring him to submit to reciprocal discovery after he obtained the State's file through a public records request made under Chapter 119. The court held that when a defendant receives discovery obtained by a codefendant, regardless of the statutory mechanism used, he is deemed to have elected to participate in discovery under Florida criminal rules.
The court held that Cabral was required to submit to reciprocal discovery because he knowingly and purposely shared in discovery obtained by his codefendant, thereby electing to participate in discovery under Rule 3.220(a), regardless of which statutory mechanism he used to obtain the records.
[1] A defendant who knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a codefendant is deemed to have elected to participate in discovery under the rules of criminal pro…
[2] Prosecution files that are reasonably related to a pending prosecution or appeal are normally exempt from discovery under public records laws.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a codefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.”
The rule that governs when a defendant's acquisition of discovery triggers reciprocal discovery obligations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlo Cabral and Jason Thomas were indicted for first degree murder. Thomas filed a notice under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 and received…
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 Public Records Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
We grant clarification of our previous denial of certiorari because, on reflection, we agree that some explanation is in order. However, we continue to decline to grant certiorari.
Carlo Cabral and Jason Thomas were indicted for first degree murder. Thomas filed the proper notice under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 and received discovery of the State’s file. Thereafter, on behalf of Cabral, a public records demand for disclosure of the State’s file pursuant to Chapter 119 was made. The State made the necessary disclosure but asked the trial court to compel Cabral to submit to reciprocal discovery pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. The court granted the State’s request and Cabral seeks certiorari asking us to reverse that order. Cabral takes the position that the public records disclosure requirement is independent of the criminal discovery rules and since he chose to proceed under the public records law and not the rules, he should not be required to submit to disclosure.
The State, on the other hand, submits that the criminal rule is so designed that Cabral may not eat his cake and have it too. The rule provides: “If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a eodefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.” See Rule 3.220(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State’s prosecution files would normally be exempt from discovery under the public records law so long as such file is reasonably related to a pending prosecution or appeal. In this ease, once the State released its file based on the codefendant request, it considered the released records as public records within Chapter 119. See Post-Newsweek Stations v. Doe, 612 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla.1992). However, but for the release to the codefendant, the records would-not have been available to Cabral under a public records request. See sections 119.011(3)(d)2, 119.07(3)(b), and 119.011(3)(e)5, Florida Statutes (1995). We believe thát 'the action of'one defendant in requesting reciprocal discovery and a code-fendant seeking the same records pursuant to Chapter 119 is nothing less than “knowingly and purposely” sharing in the 'discovery obtained by a codefendant under the rule and that the trial court was right in so determining.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. State, 745 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1999)…rged with the same crime could subsequently obtain the same records, but without any reciprocal discovery obligation. We do not believe the drafters of the Public Records act intended such an absurd result. Id. Cabral v. State In Cabral v. State, 699 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Carlo Cabral and Jason Thomas were indicted for first-degree murder. Thomas participated in discovery under rule 3.220 and received the State’s file. Cabral then made a chapter 119 demand for the same file. Although the State co…
-
Henderson v. State, 708 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…vil case involved here. The State emphasized the language in rule 3.220 providing that when a defendant engages in any discovery process, he must provide reciprocal disclosure. The State also notified this court of a recent opinion, Cabral v. State, 699 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (holding that but for a codefendant’s election to participate in discovery, defendant would not have access to that information under the Public Records Act, and therefore the defendant seeking public records was “knowingly and p…
Authorities Cited
- Post-Newsweek Stations v. DOE, 612 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1992)