Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220Discovery
Citations: 674 So. 2d 83; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 552; 1995 Fla. LEXIS 1750; 1995 WL 640437Docket: No. 84273
Court: Supreme Court of Florida; November 1, 1995; Florida; State Supreme Court
New Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.202, titled “Expert Testimony of Mental Mitigation During Penalty Phase of Capital Trial,” was proposed by the Court on May 4, 1995. The rule aims to allow a State mental health expert to examine defendants who plan to present expert testimony of mental mitigation in capital trials, paralleling existing provisions for the insanity defense under Rule 3.216. The Court reviewed a comprehensive amendment proposed by the Florida Criminal Procedure Rules Committee regarding discovery rules for the penalty phase but opted for a more focused approach with Rule 3.202 to ensure fairness in capital cases. Following publication for public comment and consideration of feedback, the Court adopted Rule 3.202 with modifications addressing concerns about practical notice requirements. Specifically, it corrected the original stipulation that defendants must provide notice of intent to establish mental mitigation forty-five days before trial, which was deemed unworkable. Under the modified rule, if the State notifies its intent to seek the death penalty within ten days post-arraignment, the defense must then give notice of its intent for mental mitigation within forty-five days of that notification. If the State fails to provide timely notice, it may still seek the death penalty but cannot utilize the provisions of Rule 3.202. This new rule is set to take effect on January 1, 1996, at 12:01 a.m., with interim procedures from Dillbeck v. State remaining in place until then. Chief Justice Grimes and Justices Overton, Shaw, Kogan, Harding, and Wells concurred with the adoption, while Justice Anstead dissented, providing a separate opinion.