Case Title: State v. Kiser

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-01-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                            Nos. 91-262 & 91-263


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

 Ellen S. Kiser                               January Term, 1992


 State of Vermont

      v.

 Kevin Bradley


 Robert Grussing III, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellant

 Jeremy Dworkin, South Londonderry, for defendant-appellee Kiser

 David J. Williams of Sleigh & Williams, St. Johnsbury, for defendant-
   appellee Bradley


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   The defendants in these consolidated cases are charged
 with possession of marijuana.  Both cases were dismissed by the district
 court for failure of the State to comply with a discovery order.  The State
 appeals the dismissals.  We reverse and remand.
      In August of 1990, a Vermont state police officer received a call from
 Detective Dave Dubret of the Fairfield Connecticut police department.
 Detective Dubret indicated that a confidential informant had identified
 Kevin Bradley of South Londonderry, Vermont as a major marijuana trafficker
 who was growing marijuana in Vermont and distributing it in Connecticut.
 The Vermont officer determined that Kevin Bradley resided with Ellen Kiser,
 who had contacts with Connecticut.
      On October 16, 1990, the Vermont officer again spoke with Detective
 Dubret who informed him that Kevin Bradley had just been arrested in
 Connecticut "after delivering approximately 43 grams of marijuana to Leon
 Galemba."  The Vermont officer used the above information to obtain a search
 warrant for the Kiser/Bradley house where police found thirteen pounds of
 marijuana.  Most of the marijuana was in a room identified by Ellen Kiser
 as being used exclusively by Kevin Bradley.  Both defendants were charged
 with felony possession of marijuana in violation of 18 V.S.A. { 4230(a)(4).
      Almost immediately, the cases were dominated by a dispute over
 discovery in which defendants sought all information about Detective
 Dubret's investigation and the arrest of defendant Bradley in Connecticut.
 On December 17, 1990, the trial judge ordered the State to produce all
 written reports of Detective Dubret.  On March 26, 1991, the court ordered
 the Attorney General, who was prosecuting the case, to produce four
 Connecticut police officers for depositions in Vermont.  Defendants followed
 up with a request for the production of items such as notes, reports, and
 photographs in the possession of the Connecticut officers.
      The State complied with the order to produce Detective Dubret's
 reports.  The Connecticut officers initially refused to come to Vermont for
 a deposition but later agreed to come as long as certain restrictions were
 imposed on the scope of the inquiry.  The court refused to accept the
 conditions, and further granted the motion to produce the items in the
 possession of the Connecticut officers, directing that they be produced at
 the depositions.  Depositions began on May 1st but broke down when the
 officers failed to produce the requested items and were not willing to
 answer some of the questions.
      Defendants then moved to dismiss as a sanction for the State's non-
 compliance with discovery orders.  The court granted the motions ruling that
 the information to be obtained was relevant to a possible claim of
 governmental misconduct under Franks v. Delaware,