I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, P eti ti o n er,

v . H O N
. D E B O R A H B E R N I N I , J udge of the Super i orC our tof the St at e of A r i zona, i n and forthe C ountyof Pi m a, R e sp o n d e n t, and ERI CA LEA D AU GH TERS- W HI TE; S E AN AAR ON J OHNS ON; J OHN CL I F T ON L I VI NGS T ON; M YR ON M ONT ANA; HI L DA AL DAY; J ONI M AR I L UJ AN; J UAN C AR L OS RO DR I GU EZ; CRI STAL M I KESELL; J AM ES F REEM AN ; M AR TI N LEE H U L E T T , JR
. ; JO H N N IE W IL L IE T R E A D W A Y ; A R L E N E K A N D IS TON EY; J AM ES BRAD LEY BRO W NI NG ; J USTI N J EFF REY STEV EN S; RO M EO A LO N SO RO DR I GUE Z ; E VE RE T T M OR GAN RU BI O ; RI CK Y J O SEPH W I LLI A M S; BELI ND A M AR I E SAN CH EZ; J AR ED SHERER; LAU RA J EAN RO W ELL; M ATTH EW FI LI P; STEVEN ANT HONY B ONI N; RY AN A. BR AYF I E L D; KAS E Y L AC H; AAR ON C
. T R IT S C H L E R ; and M A R T IN H E N R Y S A N D E R S ;

R e a l P a rties in In ter e st. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- SA 2008- 0078

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N A PR - 7 200 9



### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2 S P E CI AL AC T I ON P RO CE E DI NG P i ma Co u n tyCa u s e No s . CR- 2 0 0 7 1 7 9 8 , CR- 2 0 0 7 2 6 8 0 , CR- 2 0 0 7 0 9 0 2 , CR- 2 0 0 7 1 4 9 9 , CR2 0 0 7 1 5 6 1 , CR- 2 0 0 7 3 0 7 9 , C R
- 2 0 0 7 3 2 5 6 , C R
- 2 0 0 7 3 3 9 1 , C R
- 2 0 0 7 3 4 8 0 , CR- 2 0 0 7 3 7 2 7 , CR2 0 0 7 3 9 4 6 , CR- 2 0 0 7 4 0 4 8 , CR- 20 07 41 56 , CR
- 20 07 43 01 , CR
- 20 07 46 55 , CR
- 20 07 48 0 5 , CR2 0 0 7 4 8 7 5 , CR- 2 0 0 8 0 0 5 7 , CR- 2 0 0 8 0 3 0 1 , CR- 2 0 0 8 0 6 8 7 , C R
- 2 0 0 8 0 8 1 2 , C R
- 2 0 0 8 0 8 4 9 , CR20080876, C R
- 20081388, C R
- 20082259, C R
- 20082295, C R
- 20083394 ( C ons ol i dat ed)

J UR I SDI CTI ON AC CEPTED; RELI EF GRA NTED

B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t orney B yJ acob R. L i nes
Nes c i , St
. Lo u i s & W e s tPLLC B yJ ames N es ci T ucs on A t t orney s forPet i t i oner

T ucs on A t t orney s for R eal P art i es i n Int eres t

E S P I N O S A , J u d g e . ¶1 T hi s s peci al act i on bythe s tat e arises fr om cons ol i dat ed ca s es i n w hi ch r eal p a rties in in ter e st, E r ic a D a u g h ter s-W h ite a n d tw e n ty -f o u r o th e r d e f

e n d a n ts c h a rg e d w ith d ri v ing w ith an alco h o l con ce n tr ati o n o f .08 o r m o re h av e so u g h t pro d u cti o n o f th e so ftw are
c o n f ig u ra tio n (“ so u rc e c o d e ” ) o f th e In to x ily z e r 8 0 0 0 , the b re a th -te st in g e q u ip m e n t cu rre n tly
us ed by the T ucs on Pol i ce D epart m ent
. D efe ndant s ar gued thattheyhad a “ s ubs t ant i al need” forthe sour ce c ode i n pr epar i ng thei rdefe ns es ; thatthe s our ce c ode w as “mat er i al and i n f o r ma t i o n n o to th e r wi s e c o v e r e d ” i n th e d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e d b yRu l e 1 5
. 1 , Ar i z . R. Cr i m. P. ; and that they w er e “unabl e . . . w i thoutundue har ds hi p t o obt ai n the s ubs t ant i al equi val ent byotherm eans . ”See Brady v. M ar yland , 373 U
. S. 83, 87 (19 6 3 ) (“[T]he s uppr es s i on byt he 1 pr os ecut i on of evi dence favor abl e t o an accus ed upon r eques t vi ol at es due proc es s w her e the ev iden ce is m aterial eith er to g u il t or t o p u n ishm en t .
. . . ”). I n thei rm ot i on, defe ndant s s oughtdi s m i s s al of thei rcas es ors uppression of the 2 In to x ilyz e r 8 0 0 0 te s t r e s u lts a s a s a n c tio n f o r C M I’ s f

a ilu re to d is c lo s e th e m a te ri a ls
. 3 ¶2 O n Sept ember10, 2008, aft era tw o- dayevi dent ia ryhear i ng, the r es pondent j udge or der ed thatC M I , a K entuckycorpor at i on thatm anufa ctur es the I nt oxi l y zerequi pm ent and ow ns the s our ce c ode, pr oduce the r eques t ed mat er i al. T h e r es pondental s o rul ed as foll ow s: T he C our tfi nds thatthe s our ce code for the I nt oxi l y zer

8 0 0 0 is no t w ith in th e p o ss e ss io n o r c o n tro l o f th e P im a C o u n ty A t t orney [’ ] s O ffi ce, any l aw enfor cement agenc y , oranyother per s on thathas part i ci pat ed i n the i nves t i gat i on thati s underthe di r ect i on orcontr ol of the Pi m a C ounty A t t orney [’ ] s O ffi ce, and th e re f o re d e c lin e s to f

in d th a t th e S ta te h a s a R u le 1 5 .1 o b li g ati o n to p rod u ce the p rog ram m ing lang u ag e o r sof tw are u ti li ze d b yC M I in its Into x il y ze r 80 0 0 m ac h ines
. T h e C o u rt fur therfi nds thatw hi l e a de fenda nti s ent i t l ed t o anyevi dence [] “thatpot ent ial lycoul d r ebutthe s t at e’ s pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng” th a t an In to x ily z e r w a s o p e ra tin g c o rre c tlya n d is e n tit led to att ack the [I ] nt oxi l y zer ’ s r el i abi l i tybefor e a j u ry , s uch in f o rm a tio n is n o t B r ady m a te ri a l.[ ] 1 ¶3 N e v e rth e le s s , a t a s u b s e q u e n th e a r i n g o n d e f e n d a n t s ’ “ R e q u e s tf

o rR e m e d ie s ,” 2 th e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e o rd e re d th e sta te to o b tain th e so u rc e c o d e f ro m C M I a n d p ro v id e it t o defe ndant s . She al s o or der ed the stat e t o s erve a CM I r epr es ent at i ve i n K entuckyw i th an
o rd e r to sh o w c a u se w h y C M I sh o u ld n o t b e h e ld in c o n tem p t. T h e re sp o n d e n t re a so n e d th a t, even though s he had f

ound the i nform at i on w as not i n the pos s es s i on orcontr ol of the s t at e, “ther e i s an obl i gat i on on t he St at e t o di s cl os e mat er i al that ’s noti n i t s pos s es s i on under4

R ul e 15 i f the St at e has bett eracc es s ” t o i nform at i on defe ndant s have s peci fi cal l yr eques t ed b u t h a v e n o t o b ta in e d , d e s p ite th e irg o o d -f a ith e f f o rt s . D i s cus s i on ¶4 T h e s t a t e h a s p e t i t i o n e d th i s c o u r t f o r s p e c i a l a c t i o n r e l i e f , a s k i n g th a twe “r ever s [e] the t r i al court ’ s or der s that C M I di s cl os e t he S our ce C ode t o D efe ndant s , thatt he St at e obt ai n the Sour ce Code fr om C M I , and that the St at e s erve the or der t o s how caus e” on C M I
. A ft er fi l i ng i t s pet i t i on, the s t at e w r ot e t o C M I r eques t i ng di s cl os ur e of the s our ce c ode
an d ap p are n tl yh ad the re sp o n d en t j u d g e’s o rde rs serv ed o n a re p rese n tat ive o f C M I. In ad d it ion , the s tat e so u g h t enf o rce m en t o f th o s e o rde rs i n a K en tuck yco u rt
. T h e re co rd

r efl ect s the K entuckycourtquas hed the or der s , fi ndi ng the I nt oxi l y zer8000 s our ce c ode
s ubj ectt o pr ot ect i on as a tr ade s ecr et
. C M I s ubs equent l ys t at ed i tw oul d pr oduce the s our ce
c o d e p ro v id e d a ll p a rties a g re e d to a p ro tec tiv e o rd e r a n d sig n e d a n o n d isc lo su re a g re e m e n t. ¶5 T he s t at e then unsu cce s s ful l ym oved the r es pondentj udge t o r econs i derher
or derr equi r i ng t he s t at e t o obt ai n and pr oduce the s our ce c ode. O n J an u ary12, 2009, t he
re sp o n d e n t co n c lu d e d sh e la c k e d ju risd ictio n to re q u ire th e o u t-o f -sta te c o rp o ra tio n to compl yw i th heror der s and vac at ed herSept ember 2008 or der di r ect i ng C M I t o di s cl os e the
so u rce co d e. A n d as n o ted a b o v e, th e state h ad alread yserv ed C M I w ith the re sp o n d en t’ s
o rde r t o sh o w ca u se. T h u s, the s tat e’s re q u e s t that w e v ac ate the resp o n d en t’ s o rde rs
r equi r i ng C M I t o di s cl os e the s our ce code and r equi r i ng the s t at e t o s erve C M I w i th an or der to s h o w c a u s e is m o o t.5

¶6 O ne i s s ue r em ai ns , how ever : w hetherthe r es pondentj udge abus ed her d isc re tio n in o rd e rin g th e sta te to o b tain th e so u rc e c o d e f ro m C M I a n d d isc lo se it t o defe ndant s . W e ac ce p t jur i s di ct i on of thi s i s s ue bec aus e the s t at e has no equal l ypl ai n,
s peedy , oradequa t e r emedybyappea l t o chal l eng e the r es pondent ’ s or dercompel l i ng d is c o v e ry, s ee Tw i n C i t

y Fi r e I ns . C o. v. B urke , 2 0 4 A ri z. 25 1 , ¶ 3 , 6 3 P
. 3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 3 (20 0 3 ),
a n d b e c a u s e th e is s u e is o n e o f s ta te w id e im p o rt a n c e , se e Ma rtin v . R e in ste in , 195 A r i z. 293, ¶ 1 0 , 9 8 7 P
. 2 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 6 -87 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). ¶7 W e w il l no t distu rb a tr ial co u rt ’s ru li n g o n d isco v eryan d d iscl o su re m att ers abs entan abus e of di s cr et i on, and w e defer t o the t r i al court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs as l ong as t hey
a re s u p p o rt e d b y re a s o n a b le e v id e n c e . T w in C ity , 2 0 4 A riz
. 2 5 1 , ¶ 1 0 , 6 3 P .3 d a t 2 8 4 -8 5 ; s ee al s o A r i z. R
. P. Spec. A ct i ons 3. ¶8 R e a so n a b le e v id e n c e su p p o rte d th e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e ’s f in d in g s th a t th e sta te has no i ndepende ntobl i gat i on underR ul e 15. 1 t o pr oduce CM I ’s s o u rce co de fort he Into x il y ze r 80 0 0 , b e c a u s e, ba sed u p o n the re co rd c o n ce rnin g the P im a C o u n tyA tt o rne y ’s O ffi ce a nd the Tucson Pol i ce D epart m ent , the s t at e has nei therpos s es s i on of the s our ce c ode

n o r c o n tr o l o v e r C M I. See A riz . R . C rim . P . 1 5 .1 (b ), (f ). W e f in d n o e v id e n c e , h o w e v e r, to
su p p o rt the r es pondent ’ s fi ndi ng thatthe s t at e has bett eracc es s than def endant s t o C M I ’s
s o u r c e c o d e a n d i s th e r e f o r e o b l i g a t e d t o p r o d u c e i t
. I n d e e d , th e s t a t e a t t e mp t e d t o h a v e CM I pr oduce the s our ce c ode, w hi ch C M I r efus ed t o do w i thoutpr ot ect i ve condi t ion s i ts ought to im p o s e .6

¶9 A s o u r su p re m e c o u rt h a s e x p lain e d , “ G e n e ra lly , ‘[ t]h e [ S ]ta te c a n n o t b e h e ld t o di s cl os e mat er i al thati tdoes notpos s es s . ’ ” Stat e v. A r m strong , 208 A r i z. 345, ¶ 55, 93 P .3 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 7 2 (2 0 0 4 ), quot i ng Stat e v. McD ani el , 1 3 6 Ar i z . 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 , 6 6 5 P. 2d 70, 77 ( 1983) ( al t er at i ons i n A r m s tr ong ). A c c o rd in g ly,

the st at e has a n obl i gat i on underR ul e 15. 1 t o di s cl os e mat er i al in f o rm a tio n n o t in its p o ss e s s io n o r u n d e r its c o n tro l o n lyif (1) the st at e has be t t er access t o the i nfo rm at i on ; (2) the d efen se sh ow s thati thas m ade a good fai th eff or tt o obt ai n the i nform at i on w i th o uts ucce s s ; and ( 3) the i nform at i on has been s p e c if ic a lly re q u e s te d b yth e d e f e n d a n t. Stat e v. R i enhar dt , 190 A r i z. 579, 585- 86 , 9 5 1 P. 2d 454, 460- 61 ( 1997) ( “fa ctthatt he pr os ecut i on i s i n a bet t er pos i t i on t o s ecur e a w i tnes s ’ s cooper at i on” does not“mean thatt he

w i tnes s i s under the pr os ecut i on’ s contr ol ”)
. W e ther efor e concl ude the r es pondentabus ed herdi s cr et i on i n or der i ng the s t at e t o obt ai n and di s cl os e the C M I s our ce c ode. ¶10 T he s t at e al s o per s uas i vel ychal l enges the r esp o n d en tj udge’ s fi ndi ng t hat d e f e n d a n ts h a v e a “ s u b s ta n tia l n e e d ” f o r th e s o u rc e c o d e to p re p a re th e irc a s e s , s ee Ar i z . R. C rim . P . 1 5 .1 (g ), an d a sk s u s to f in d th a t th e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e a b u se d h e r dis c re tio n in th is regar d as w el l
. B ut res olut i on of this qu est i on i s no t requi red, based on the r ecord before us, to d e c id e th e is s u e p re s e n te d in t h i s s p e c i a l a c tio n . See Progr es s i ve Spe ci al t y I ns . C o. v. Farm ers I

ns. C o. of Ariz. , 1 4 3 A ri z. 54 7 , 5 4 8 , 6 9 4 P
. 2 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 6 (A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (ap p ell ate c o u rt sh oul d notgi ve advi s oryopi ni ons ordeci de i s s ues otherthan thos e r equi r ed t o di s pos e of
a p p e a l u n d e r c o n sid e ra tio n ). N o r c a n w e sa yth is q u e stio n w ill n e c e s s a rilyb e re lev a n t in f u tu re litig a tio n b e tw e e n th e s e p a rt ie s . Se e Velas c o v . Mal l or y , 5 A ri z. A pp. 406, 410- 11, 427 P. 2d 540, 544- 45 ( 1967) ( courts houl d notr end er “a d vi s oryopi ni ons ant i ci pat i ve ofA tthe hea r i ng on O ct ober27, 2008, defe ndant s neverar gued the sta t e had “ bett er 3 acc es s ” t o C M I ’ s s our ce code. I ns t ead, couns el for defe ndant s t ol d the court , “I don’ tt hi nk C M I i s ever goi ng t o turn overthe s our ce c ode. I don’ tthi nk theyw i l l everdo i ti rr es pect i ve of w hetherthe St at e i s or der ed t o s erve s om ethi ng on them .
. . orotherw i s e. ” 7 tr oubl es w hi ch do not exi s t ; m ay neverexi s t ; and the pr eci s e form of w hi ch, s houl d theyever
a rise , [ th e c o u rt] c a n n o t p re d ict” ); see al so A l l en v. G r aham , 8 A r i z. A pp. 336, 338, 446 P. 2d 240, 242 ( 1968) ( “A ppel l at e r evi ew i s ci r cumscr i bed by the pos tur e of the ca s e i n the l ow er
court
. ”)
. W e ther efor e dec l i ne t o addr es s w hetherthe r es pondentj udge abus ed herdi s cr et i on and cl ear l yerr ed i n fi ndi ng defe ndant s had m et thei r bur den of es t abl i s hi ng a s ubs t ant i al need f o r th e d isc o v e ryth e yso u g h t. D i s posi t i on ¶11 T h e re sp o n d e n t ju d g e e rre d a s a m a tter o f law a n d a b u se d h e r d isc re tio n in
or der i ng the s t at e t o pr oduce s our ce c ode mat er i al forthe I nt oxi l y zer8000 th at it d id not po sses s and h ad b een u nab l e t o o btai n, w i tho ut anyevidence the st at e had “bett er access ” than def endant s t o w hatC M I m ai nt ai ns ar e tr ade s ecr ets. A ccor di ngl y , w e vac at e the 3

r es pondent ’ s or derof O ct ober27, 2008, “thatthe s t at e obt ai n the s our ce c ode fort he In to x ilyz e r 8 0 0 0 a n d In to x ilyz e r 8 0 0 0 s o f tw a re v e rs io n s 8 1 0 5 .4 4 , 8 1 0 5 .4 5 a n d 8 1 0 5 .4 6 .”

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:
J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge
J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge