Manuel v. State
162 So. 3d 1157
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Manuel was charged with aggravated assault, fleeing/eluding, and grand theft and pleaded not guilty.
- Defense counsel, via the Public Defender, sought confidential competency evaluations and retained Dr. Jacquelyn Olander to evaluate Manuel.
- The State moved to compel production of Dr. Olander’s written competency report under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii) as reciprocal discovery after the defense elected discovery.
- Manuel objected, asserting the report was confidential and protected by the attorney-client privilege (and related statutes/rules protecting defense mental-health evaluations).
- The trial court granted the State’s motion and ordered disclosure; Manuel petitioned for certiorari review.
- The Florida court granted certiorari, concluding the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law because the report was privileged and not subject to disclosure absent waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defense-retained competency/mental-health report must be disclosed under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii) when the defendant elected discovery | The State: rule 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii) requires disclosure of expert reports made in connection with the case, including mental examinations, once defendant elects discovery | Manuel: rule 3.216(a), statutes, and attorney-client privilege protect defense mental-health evaluations from disclosure absent waiver | The court held the report is protected by attorney-client privilege; rule 3.220 yields to privilege and disclosure was improper without waiver |
| Whether Kidder v. State mandates disclosure of the report here | The State relied on Kidder to argue reciprocal discovery covers expert reports regardless of whether expert will testify | Manuel distinguished Kidder as involving a scientific test, not a confidential defense mental-health evaluation subject to privilege | The court distinguished Kidder and declined to apply it to privileged competency evaluations |
| Whether statutory provisions permit the State alternative means to assess competency without the report | The State implied it needed the report to assess competence | Manuel pointed to § 916.115 and related rules providing court-appointed experts and limits/conditions on disclosure | The court noted § 916.115 allows the State to request court-appointed experts and rejected the claim that withholding the private report prevents competency assessment |
| Whether waiver occurred | The State argued defendant’s election to participate in discovery required disclosure | Manuel argued no waiver of confidentiality occurred | The court found no waiver and held confidentiality remained intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Kidder v. State, 117 So.3d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (interpreting reciprocal discovery rule to require disclosure of scientific test results)
- Abdool v. State, 53 So.3d 208 (Fla. 2010) (applying rule 3.220(d)(1)(B)(ii) to mental-health data in penalty-phase discovery)
- Lovette v. State, 636 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 1994) (state cannot elicit specific facts from confidential expert unless defendant waives privilege by calling expert)
- State v. Hamilton, 448 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 1984) (rule protecting court-appointed experts and their communications under attorney-client privilege)
- United States v. Alvarez, 519 F.2d 1036 (3d Cir. 1975) (recognizing need to protect communications with psychiatric experts to preserve effective assistance of counsel)