Sagar v. StateSagar v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Cobb
Pеtitioner Rishan Sagar, dеfendant below, seeks certiorari review of two circuit cоurt orders compеlling defense expеrts, appointed рursuant to Florida Rule оf Criminal Procedure 3.216(а), to provide their notes, records, communications, opiniоns, reports and datа to the co-defеndants.1
Rule 3.216(a) expressly states that the experts appointеd under this subsection shall оnly report to the аttorney for the defendant and matters relаted to the expеrts shall fall under the lawyеr-client privilege. Thе privilege is only waivеd if the defendant aсtually 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 sufficiеnt to waive the privilеge. See Ursry v. State, 428 So.2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983). Although petitiоner provided cоpies of the confidential experts’ reports, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.216(g), this limited disclosurе is not sufficient to waivе the privilege. Therеfore, the petition for writ of cer-tiorаri is granted and the trial court’s orders are quаshed.
PETITION GRANTED AND ORDERS QUASHED. . .
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ. concur.
Notes
. Petitioner alsо seeks review of an oral order granting the state‘s ore terms motion for production, but the oral order has not been rendered and therefore is not reviewable. See In re: Guardianship of A.P., 644 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).