Case Title: State v. Barrows

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-03-01T00:00:00Z

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.


                                 No. 92-053


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 3, Rutland Circuit
 Rahel Barrows
                                              March Term, 1992


 Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J.

 Peter R. Neary, Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for
   plaintiff-appellee

 Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendants-appellants

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
   Montpelier, for amicus curiae Office of the Defender General


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      GIBSON, J.   Rahel Barrows, who is charged with murder, and his private
 investigator, E. Guy Paradee, appeal an order holding Paradee in civil
 contempt for refusing to answer deposition questions about witnesses he had
 interviewed.  The State asked Paradee to reveal if he had spoken to a
 particular witness and to hand over any statements he had obtained from
 witnesses listed by the State.  Appellants contend the State has no right to
 these statements and that the request violates the work-product privilege
 of Barrows' counsel and Barrows' constitutional rights under Chapter I,
 Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution.  The State moved to dismiss the
 appeal on the ground that it is not an appeal from a final order.  We deny
 the motion to dismiss and vacate the trial court's contempt order, holding
 that it was error to order defendant's investigator to disclose witness
 statements to the prosecution.  Because we find that the State has no
 authority under statute or rule to obtain witness statements from the
 defense, we do not reach the work-product or constitutional issues raised by
 appellants.
                                     I.
      In February 1991, Barrows was charged with murder and burglary.  In
 preparing Barrows' defense, his attorneys hired E. Guy Paradee as a private
 investigator.  Subsequently, the State listed Paradee as a potential
 witness.  In July 1991, the State served Paradee with a notice of deposition
 and a subpoena duces tecum, ordering Paradee to bring to the deposition any
 witness statements he had obtained during his investigation.  Defendant
 moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, on grounds that
 Paradee was not a witness and that any statements he had obtained were the
 work product of the defense.  The trial court denied the motions, but
 granted a limited protective order preventing the State from inquiring into
 work product as defined by V.R.Cr.P. 16(d)(1).  Because the ruling left open
 possible inquiry into witness statements obtained by Paradee, the defense
 filed a motion for permission to appeal and a motion to stay the order.
 These motions were denied.  Defendant then moved in this Court for
 permission to appeal and for a stay of the deposition pending the outcome of
 the appeal.  We denied the motion.
      The Paradee deposition went forward on December 4, 1991, but foundered
 when defendant's attorneys objected to the State's questions about
 statements made to Paradee by a potential witness.  The parties went before
 the court, which reiterated that witness statements obtained by Paradee,
 either written or oral, should be disclosed.   Back in the deposition, the
 same objections arose again and Paradee refused to answer the State's
 questions.  The parties returned to the court, which found Paradee in
 contempt, and he was taken into custody.  Defendant's attorneys filed a
 notice of appeal of the contempt order and a motion to suspend execution.
 The trial court granted the stay and Paradee was released.  At a subsequent
 status conference, the court, at the request of the State, vacated the stay,
 and Paradee was again subpoenaed.  On February 3, 1992, defendant's
 attorneys filed with this Court a motion for stay of the contempt order.  We
 granted that motion and expedited the appeal.
                                     II.
      We deal first with the question of jurisdiction.  The State argues that
 we cannot hear this appeal because there has been no final judgment from
 which an appeal may be taken.  V.R.A.P. 4; State v. Hohman, 137 Vt. 102,
 104,