IN RE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220.
Supreme Court of Florida.
December 20, 2012.
Mark Caliel, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Jacksonville, Florida; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and Heather Savage Telfer, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, for Petitioner
The Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle report proposing an amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b) (Prosecutor's Discovery Obligation) in response to 2011 legislation.1 We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
The Committee proposes an amendment to rule 3.220(b) in order to conform the rule to section 92.561, Florida Statutes (2012), which prohibits the reproduction of child pornography in a criminal case. Section 92.561 was created by chapter 2011-220, section 4, Laws of Florida, which became effective July 1, 2011. See ch. 2011-220, §17, Laws of Fla.
Subdivision (b)(1) of rule 3.220 currently provides, in pertinent part, that "[w]ithin 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall . . . permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph" specified information and material in the state's possession or control, which could include property or material that cannot be reproduced under section 92.561. Therefore, the Committee proposes that subdivision (b)(1) of the rule be amended to further provide that "any property or material that portrays sexual performance by a child or constitutes child pornography may not be copied, photographed, duplicated, or otherwise reproduced[.]"
Accordingly, after considering the proposed amendment and the relevant legislation, we amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(b) as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is underscored. The amendment shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion. Because the amendment was not published for comment prior to its adoption, interested persons shall have sixty days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.2
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.