Case Title: State v. Wade

Citation: 176 Vt. 550, 2003 VT 99, 839 A.2d 559

Docket Number: 2001-318

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
State of Vermont v. Wade (2001-318); 176 Vt. 550; 839 A.2d 559

2003 VT 99

[Filed 28-Oct-2003]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 20-Nov-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 99

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-318

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2002

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }	District Court of Vermont,
       v.	                       }	Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
                                       }	
  Sean Wade	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1106-6-00 Wmcr

                                                Trial Judge: David T. Suntag

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The Windham County State's Attorney appeals from the Windham
  District Court's dismissal of an aggravated assault conviction.  The case
  was dismissed to sanction the Windham County State's Attorney's Office for
  a discovery violation, as well as repeated violations in other cases.  We
  conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the
  conviction because the discovery violation did not prejudice defendant, and
  therefore we reverse. 

       ¶  2.  On June 26, 2000, Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis
  filed charges against defendant Sean Wade for aggravated assault arising
  from an altercation in a Bellows Falls bar.  Wade got into an argument with
  another bar patron, a scuffle ensued, and Wade hit the victim several times
  over the head with a beer bottle.  Wade claimed he acted in self defense
  and feared for his life, believing that the victim had a gun. 

       ¶  3.  Trial was set for April 25 and 26, 2001.  In October 2000,
  the court convened a status conference and inquired about the parties'
  discovery progress.  Davis informed the court that his office had disclosed
  to the defense everything the court's discovery order required him to
  disclose.  Nevertheless, during cross examination of the investigating
  officer at trial, the defense learned that two other officers were present
  at the scene following the incident.  After the prosecution rested, the
  defense orally moved to dismiss the charges, citing the State's failure to
  disclose the identity of the other two officers during discovery.  Davis
  defended the omission by explaining that he had not spoken with the officer
  before the morning of trial, and suspected that no one in his office had
  done so either.   Davis said he relied on a form his office gives to the
  police to obtain the identification of all witnesses to an alleged offense,
  and that, in Wade's case, the form did not show that other officers were
  present at the scene.  The court informed the parties that it would take
  Wade's motion to dismiss under advisement and recessed for a short break.
   
       ¶  4.  When the court reconvened, Wade's counsel informed the court
  that during the break, Davis had learned the names of the two previously
  undisclosed officers and had provided them to the defense.  Through his
  inquiries, Davis also learned that a written report and a videotape of
  defendant's arrest existed.  Neither piece of evidence had been disclosed
  or provided to the defense during discovery.  Davis provided a copy of the
  written report to the defense and to the court, which reviewed the report
  in camera.  The court instructed the State's Attorney to make the two
  officers available for deposition before trial the following morning so the
  defense could discover if they had any relevant information, and deferred
  ruling on Wade's motion to dismiss.

       ¶  5.  The next day, the parties informed the court that Wade's
  defense team had reviewed the report, watched the videotape, and obtained
  additional information about the incident from the two previously
  undisclosed police officers.  Regarding the overnight discovery, the
  parties told the court that they had prepared a stipulated statement by one
  of the officers to be read to the jury.  The parties agreed that the other
  officer would testify in person.  At Wade's request, and without objection
  from the State, the court postponed its ruling on the motion to dismiss
  until after the jury returned its verdict. 

       ¶  6.  The jury eventually found Wade guilty.  After the verdict, the
  parties filed post-trial memoranda on the motion to dismiss.  Wade's
  counsel argued for dismissal on the grounds that the discovery violation in
  Wade's case was part of a longstanding pattern of neglect and misconduct in
  discovery matters by members of the Windham County State's Attorney's
  Office.  To demonstrate the alleged pattern of discovery abuse, the defense
  memorandum identified ten prosecutions in the Windham District Court where
  the State's discovery practices were a problem.  On May 10, 2001, the trial
  court granted Wade's motion.  The court found Davis's discovery violation
  in Wade's case "clear, serious, and inexcusable."  The violation was not an
  isolated incident, the court noted, but was part of "a pattern of neglect
  in discovery practices."  Citing seven of the ten cases Wade identified in
  his memorandum, plus three additional cases prosecuted in the Windham
  District Court, the court found that the pattern of discovery misconduct
  began in 1999 and continued even after the State's Attorney's omission in
  this case became known. (FN1)  The discovery violations the State's
  Attorney and some of his deputies committed included late disclosure of
  exculpatory evidence, in some cases a year to sixteen months late.  The
  discovery violations resulted in admonishments, continuances, evidentiary
  exclusions, and dismissals.

       ¶  7.  Although the court found a pattern of discovery misconduct
  over the years, it found that in Wade's case, the State's late disclosures
  did not prejudice Wade because he used the untimely disclosed evidence at
  trial.  The court also found, however, that the prosecution's dilatory
  discovery practices in case after case caused system-wide prejudice in
  Windham County.  It noted that Davis had responded to the charges of
  discovery misconduct in Wade's case by blaming the relevant investigating
  law enforcement officers.  Describing its action as "extraordinary," the
  court found that its prior admonitions and escalating sanctions had failed
  to cure the State's Attorney's discovery problems.  The court concluded
  that dismissal of the prosecution against Wade, with prejudice, was
  necessary to accomplish the goals of the discovery rules.  The State timely
  appealed the court's ruling.
   
       ¶  8.  Although Davis admits that he violated V.R.Cr.P. 16 in this
  case by not obtaining relevant information from the investigating officer
  within the discovery deadline, he does not concede that his office has
  demonstrated "a pattern of neglect in discovery practices."

       ¶  9.  We review the trial court's ruling on Wade's motion to
  dismiss for an abuse of discretion.  See State v. Passino, 161 Vt. 515,
  521,