State v. TascarellaState v. Tascarella
Richard L. Rosenbaum of the Law Offices of Richard L. Rosenbaum, and Gene Reibman, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.
McDONALD, Justice.
We review State v. Tascarella, 559 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the district court certified the following question as being of great рublic importance:
Is it an abuse of discretion to exclude evidence as a sanction against the state where government agents disregard a court order bеcause they are restricted by law from disclosing information without approval?
We have jurisdiction.
Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents arrested Allen Tascarella and Barbara Ambs Tascarella for cocaine trafficking. In response to the Tаscarellas’ demand for discovery, the state indicated that eleven DEA agents had information relevant to the offense charged. The agents are justice deрartment employees and are forbidden from disclosing information acquired in their official duties or contained in department files without prior approval.
The trial court, after a hearing, found that the Tascarellas would be prejudiced if forced to confront these witnesses at trial without pretrial discovery. The court recognized that contempt was not an alternative under the circumstances2 and refused to allow the agents to testify pursuant to
The purpose of Florida‘s criminal discovery rules is to avail the defense of evidence known to the state so that convictions will not be obtained by the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant or by surprise tactics in the courtroom. Cooper v. State, 336 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 2200, 53 L.Ed.2d 239 (1977); State v. Counce, 392 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In furtherance of this purpose,
(1) Generally. At any time after the filing of the indictment or information the defendant may take the deposition upon oral examination of any person who may have information relevant to the offense charged.
Failure to comply with an applicable discovery rule or order may result in court-ordered sanctions pursuant to
The state argues that the federal regulations preempt the аpplication of state criminal discovery rules, and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by sanctioning the state for refusing to comply with state rules. We disagrеe.
It has long been held that states have full control over the procedural rules in their courts, in both civil and criminal cases. Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 652, 68 S.Ct. 763, 769, 92 L.Ed. 986 (1948). See also Markert v. Johnston, 367 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 1978) (Florida Supreme Court has the exclusive power to prescribe rules for the practice and procedure in Florida courts). In Bute the Court stated:
They [the states] retained this control from the beginning and, in some states, locаl control of these matters long antedated the Constitution. The states and the people still are the repositories of the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, . .. .” The underlying
control over the procedure in any state court, dealing with distinctly local offenses ... consequently rеmains in the state.
333 U.S. at 652, 68 S.Ct. at 769 (footnote omitted; quoting
The case under review originated in state court and involved the prosecution of the Tascarellas for violating state law. In this situation, Bute requires trial сourts to follow state rules with respect to procedural matters. The supervision of discovery depositions is a procedural matter and is therefore subjeсt to state control.
The state further argues that the trial court abused its discretion by compelling the agents to appear for deposition, or be forbidden from testifying at trial, without first attempting to reach a compromise that would have satisfied both the state discovery rules and the federal regulations.4 We disagree. Although we recognize that relevant evidence should not be excluded unless no other remedy suffices, a ruling on whether a discovery violation calls for the exclusion of testimony is discretionary and should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse is clearly shown. Wilkerson v. State, 461 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
The exclusion of testimony is a permissible sanction under
Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the witnesses from testifying at trial as a sanction for the willful failure to comply with the trial court‘s discovery order and
It is so ordered.
SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, BARKETT, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
GRIMES, J., concurs with an opinion.
GRIMES, Justice, concurring.
In this opinion we have held that there was no abuse of discretion in prohibiting the DEA agents from testifying under the facts of this cаse. I write only to point out that other alternatives might also be acceptable. For example, a trial judge could certainly require defense counsel tо cooperate with federal authorities in seeking to obtain the depositions before holding that the agents could not testify.