STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Kevin PRATT, Respondent
Florida District Court of Appeal
· July 1, 2015 · Docket No. 4D15-1077
169 So. 3d 252
Syllabus
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Kevin PRATT, Respondent. No. 4D15-1077. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. July 1, 2015. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for petitioner. Howard Finkelstein, Public Defender, 17th Judicial Circuit, Sarah W. Sandler, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauder-dale, for respondent.
Full Opinion (1,010 characters)
PER CURIAM. The State of Florida seeks certiorari review of a non-final order which granted a motion by a criminal defendant to disclose the grand jury testimony of a witness. Grand jury testimony ordinarily is kept secret, § 905.24, Fla. Stat. (2014), but exceptions apply. See § 905.27, Fla. Stat. (2014). The State argued that defendant had not asserted a sufficient predicate for disclosure. Alternatively, if the trial court found a sufficient predicate under section 905.27, the State argued that the trial court should examine the testimony in camera to determine its materiality. See James v. Witte, 480 So.2d 253, 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Jackman v. State, 140 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); see also Minton v. State, 113 So.2d 361, 367 (Fla.1959). The trial court ordered disclosure without conducting an in camera inspection. We grant the petition, in part, to the extent that we direct the trial court to hold an in camera inspection. Granted in Part. CIKLIN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.