Opinion ID: 2015105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: reciprocal discovery provision

Text: Nonetheless, the State also urges this court to ratify the trial court's order of alibi witness disclosure, if not based upon § 29-1927, then upon the criminal reciprocal discovery provisions of § 29-1916. Section 29-1916 provides, in pertinent part, that whenever the court grants a request by the defendant for discovery, the court may condition its order by requiring the defendant to grant the prosecution like access to comparable items or information included within the defendant's request which: (a) Are in the possession, custody, or control of the defendant; (b) The defendant intends to produce at the trial; and (c) Are material to the preparation of the prosecution's case. (Emphasis supplied.) However, in the instant case, Woods filed a motion for discovery requesting to inspect and copy any statements made by Woods; any prior criminal record of Woods; the results and reports of any physical, mental, or scientific tests or experiments; and any other documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or other tangible things which could be used as evidence by the State. Woods did not request access to any information about the witnesses expected to testify for the prosecution. As such, Woods requested nothing that could be characterized as comparable items or information to a list of her alibi witnesses. Cf. State v. Hinn, 229 Neb. 556, 427 N.W.2d 791 (1988). Therefore, the reciprocal discovery provisions of § 29-1916 provide no basis for the trial court's order that Woods disclose the identity of her alibi witnesses. The State's claim in that regard is without merit.