Perreault v. State
203 So. 3d 999
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1991 Perreault was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of his 11‑month‑old stepson; experts for both sides relied on autopsy photographs that were not admitted into evidence.
- Perreault maintains his defense was that CPR efforts could have caused the fatal injuries; he later retained forensic pathologist Dr. John Plunkett to reexamine the case.
- In 2014 Perreault moved to compel production of the autopsy photos from the county medical examiner so Dr. Plunkett could review them to support a potential Rule 3.850 motion alleging newly discovered evidence.
- The medical examiner declined to produce the photos citing section 406.135, which generally treats autopsy photos as confidential absent parental consent or a court order showing good cause.
- The trial court denied Perreault’s motion, concluding he had to show good cause and give notice to the victim’s mother under section 406.135. Perreault appealed.
- The Second District reversed, holding § 406.135(7) exempts criminal proceedings (including collateral criminal proceedings) from the statute’s disclosure restrictions, so the trial court erred in imposing the statute’s good‑cause and notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 406.135 requires a court order and a showing of good cause and notice to family before producing autopsy photos in this context | Perreault: § 406.135(7) exempts criminal proceedings (including Rule 3.850 collateral criminal proceedings) from the statute’s disclosure requirements, so no court order/good cause/notice under § 406.135 was required | State/medical examiner: § 406.135(4) and (5) require court order, good cause showing, and notice to specified family members before disclosure | Court held § 406.135(7) exempts criminal proceedings from the statute’s disclosure prerequisites; the trial court erred in denying the motion for failure to show good cause or provide notice |
| Whether the trial court’s denial was error as a matter of law | Perreault: denial rested on incorrect legal application of § 406.135 to criminal proceedings | State: denial appropriate because Perreault did not show good cause or provide notice | Court reversed: applying the correct legal rule requires remand for further proceedings; trial court misapplied the law |
Key Cases Cited
- Campus Commc'ns, Inc. v. Earnhardt, 821 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (context for enactment of § 406.135 after media sought autopsy photos)
- Sarasota Herald‑Tribune v. State, 924 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (held § 406.135 does not render court exhibits confidential in criminal proceedings and interpreted subsection (7))
- Hall v. State, 752 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 2000) (motion for postconviction relief is a collateral criminal proceeding)
- Hernandez v. State, 16 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reversal required when trial court applies incorrect legal rule)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (standard for appellate review where a trial judge fails to apply correct legal rule)
- Vaughn v. State, 711 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (similar principle that misapplication of law warrants reversal)