Sagar v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sagar v. State

727 So. 2d 1118, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2686, 1999 WL 129178

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1999

DocketNo. 98-3140

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 727 So. 2d 1118 (Sagar v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sagar v. State, 727 So. 2d 1118, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2686, 1999 WL 129178 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, J.

Petitioner Rishan Sagar, defendant below, seeks certiorari review of two circuit court orders compelling defense experts, appointed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(a), to provide their notes, records, communications, opinions, reports and data to the co-defendants.¹

Rule 3.216(a) expressly states that the experts appointed under this subsection shall only report to the attorney for the defendant and matters related to the experts shall fall under the lawyer-client privilege. The privilege is only waived if the defendant actually calls the confidential expert to testify. See Sanders v. State, 707 So.2d 664 (Fla.1998); Morgan v. State, 639 So.2d 6 (Fla.1994); Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304 (Fla.1994). The fact that the defendant lists the expert as a potential witness is not sufficient to waive the privilege. See Ursry v. State, 428 So.2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983). Although petitioner provided copies of the confidential experts’ reports, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(g), this limited disclosure is not sufficient to waive the privilege. Therefore, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the trial court’s orders are quashed.

PETITION GRANTED AND ORDERS QUASHED. . .

W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ. concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COBB, J.

Petitioner Rishan Sagar, defendant below, seeks certiorari review of two circuit court orders compelling defense experts, appointed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(a), to provide their notes, records, communications, opinions, reports and data to the co-defendants.¹

Rule 3.216(a) expressly states that the experts appointed under this subsection shall only report to the attorney for the defendant and matters related to the experts shall fall under the lawyer-client privilege. The privilege is only waived if the defendant actually calls the confidential expert to testify. See Sanders v. State, 707 So.2d 664 (Fla.1998); Morgan v. State, 639 So.2d 6 (Fla.1994); Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304 (Fla.1994). The fact that the defendant lists the expert as a potential witness is not sufficient to waive the privilege. See Ursry v. State, 428 So.2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983). Although petitioner provided copies of the confidential experts’ reports, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(g), this limited disclosure is not sufficient to waive the privilege. Therefore, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the trial court’s orders are quashed.

PETITION GRANTED AND ORDERS QUASHED. . .

W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

727 So. 2d 1118, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2686, 1999 WL 129178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sagar-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack