Kidder v. State
117 So. 3d 1166
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kidder involved in a 2009 crash that killed Bree Kelly; EMS drew two blood samples; FDLE analysis showed 0.196% alcohol.
- Kidder was charged with DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide and elected to participate in Rule 3.220 discovery.
- The trial court granted Kidder’s request to have the second blood sample analyzed by Wuesthoff Toxicology.
- State moved to compel disclosure of Wuesthoff’s results under Rule 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii), arguing the results are not work product.
- Kidder argued Wuesthoff’s report was work product protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and not to be used at trial.
- The trial court ordered disclosure of Wuesthoff’s report; opinion notes the report itself was not in the appendix.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii) require disclosure of expert test results regardless of witness use? | Kidder: not required unless expert will testify. | State: rule mandates disclosure of scientific test results. | Yes, disclosure required regardless of expected testimony. |
| Is the Wuesthoff report protected work product? | Kidder: report is defense work product and protected. | State: report is discoverable under 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii). | No; Wuesthoff report is not work product. |
| Does disclosure violate Fifth Amendment self-incrimination? | Kidder: compelled disclosure implicates self-incrimination. | State: disclosure is not self-incrimination; chemist not protected. | No Fifth Amendment violation; privilege is personal to the accused. |
| Does compulsory disclosure infringe Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel? | Kidder: discovery could undermine trial preparation and harm counsel. | State: no general right to discovery in criminal cases. | No Sixth Amendment right to discovery; discovery procedure permissible; acknowledges potential defense dilemma. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdool v. State, 53 So.3d 208 (Fla. 2010) (applies Rule 3.220(d)(l)(B)(ii) to require raw data disclosure)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (origin of work product doctrine)
- Nobles v. United States, 422 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1975) (work product protects attorney's/mind processes)
- Smith v. State, 873 So.2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (rule 3.220(g)(1) shields defense opinions/notes)
- Bailey v. State, 100 So.3d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (raw data from mental health expert not work product)
- Weston TC LLLP v. CNDP Mktg. Inc., 66 So.3d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (clarifies scope of work product interpretation)