Opinion ID: 2062391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discovery and Continuance

Text: Taylor suggests that the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution gives him the right to discover evidence necessary to prove disproportionality under the standard set forth in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001. On September 26, 1983, Taylor moved that the State produce a list showing the accused in each felony prosecution for Habitual Offender commenced in the 23rd Judicial Circuit since 1973, with copies of all prior convictions. Taylor indicated that the information was necessary to determine whether the habitual criminal charge was selectively or vindictively made and whether the prosecution conformed to the Eighth Amendment. Neither federal nor state precedent require discovery in this instance. In Holley v. Smith, 792 F.2d 1046 (11th Cir.1986), the Court of Appeals held the defendant was not entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the issue of proportionality under Solem. This Court has also affirmed a trial court's denial of a similar discovery request. In Jones v. State (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 1060, the defendant requested the name, address, race and gender of everyone charged with a felony in Monroe County from 1975 to 1981, who could have been charged as a habitual offender. We held that the trial court's denial of discovery was within its discretion [b]ased on the questionable materiality of the information sought and the burden that compelling such discovery would place on the state... . Id. at 1065. In addition to pre-trial discovery, Taylor moved for a continuance to permit him time for discovery on the habitual offender question. Taylor argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion. In light of our holding that Taylor did not have a right to require that the State produce the information he requested, it was appropriate for the trial court to deny this request as well.