Henderson v. State
745 So. 2d 319 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant who uses Florida's Public Records Act (Chapter 119) to obtain nonexempt public records related to their pending prosecution is deemed to have participated in discovery, which triggers the reciprocal discovery obligation under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220.
Facts:
- John Wesley Henderson and Tracy Adams were separately indicted for the murder of Lawrence Pinkard.
- The State of Florida sought the death penalty against Henderson.
- Counsel for co-perpetrator Tracy Adams elected to participate in the formal discovery process under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, receiving full disclosure from the State.
- This action made the otherwise exempt 'active criminal investigative information' related to the case publicly available.
- Henderson's counsel, who had chosen not to participate in formal discovery, then sent a letter to the local sheriff's office under the Public Records Act (Chapter 119).
- The letter requested copies of all reports relating to Pinkard's death and the arrests of Henderson and Adams.
- The letter was on the law firm's letterhead but did not mention Henderson's pending criminal case number.
Procedural Posture:
- After Henderson's counsel made a public records request to the sheriff, the State filed a motion for a protective order in the trial court handling Henderson's criminal case.
- The trial court granted the State's motion, ruling that the public records request triggered Henderson's reciprocal discovery obligation under Rule 3.220.
- The trial court certified the issue as one of great public importance.
- Henderson, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the First District Court of Appeal to quash the trial court's order.
- The First District Court of Appeal denied Henderson's petition but certified the question to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant's use of Florida's Public Records Act (Chapter 119) to request nonexempt law enforcement records related to their pending case trigger the reciprocal discovery obligation under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220?
Opinions:
Majority - Kogan, Senior Justice
Yes, a criminal defendant's use of the Public Records Act for case-related documents triggers reciprocal discovery obligations. A defendant cannot use the Public Records Act as an 'end-run' around the reciprocity requirements of Rule 3.220. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind section 119.07(8) was to prevent the Public Records Act from expanding or limiting the established rules of criminal discovery. Henderson could only access the requested documents because his co-defendant, Adams, had already engaged in formal discovery, which made the otherwise exempt investigative files public. Allowing Henderson to obtain these documents without incurring a reciprocal obligation would create an absurd and unfair result, disadvantaging the co-defendant who followed the standard procedure. The court also held that law enforcement agencies are agents of 'the State' for discovery purposes and, sua sponte, amended Rule 3.220 to explicitly state that making such a public records request constitutes an election to participate in discovery.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Anstead, J.
The rule should be amended for future cases, but this new interpretation should not be applied retroactively to Henderson. Henderson was acting under the existing law, which gave him, 'like any other Florida citizen, a right of access to any nonexempt state document.' He had not voluntarily subjected himself to the reciprocal discovery rules but was instead using a legal avenue available to any member of the public at the time. Therefore, he should not be penalized for using a statutory right that existed before the court's current decision and rule amendment.
Analysis:
This decision closes a significant procedural loophole that allowed criminal defendants to circumvent reciprocal discovery obligations by using the Public Records Act. By harmonizing Chapter 119 with Rule 3.220, the court reinforced the principle of mutual discovery and prevented what it viewed as a strategic end-run around the rules. The court's unusual step of immediately amending the procedural rule sua sponte solidifies this holding, providing clear notice to future defendants that this discovery strategy triggers reciprocity. This promotes fairness in the discovery process and prevents co-defendants from being strategically disadvantaged.
