Opinion ID: 1366656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Failure to File Discovery Request

Text: Parsons next contends that his counsel's failure to move for formal discovery was ineffective assistance. Rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the prosecutor shall disclose to the defense upon request certain material or information of which he has knowledge. Utah R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)-(5). The request contemplated in rule 16 is a written request for discovery filed at least five days prior to trial as provided for in rule 12. Utah R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3); State v. Booker, 709 P.2d 342, 346 (Utah 1985). Rule 16, however, provides for informal discovery when convenience reasonably requires. Utah R.Crim.P. 16(e). Informal discovery permits the prosecutor or defense to make disclosure by notifying the opposing party that material and information may be inspected, tested or copied at specified reasonable times and places. Id. The discovery in this case was informal. The prosecutor had an open file policy pursuant to which all evidence and documents were given to the defense, simultaneously with [the prosecutor's] receiving it. At the habeas proceeding, the prosecutor testified that everything [he] had was given to [defense counsel] and Mr. Parsons from day one. Likewise, defense counsel testified that the State did not use any evidence at trial that he had not seen before. To prove prejudice, Parsons must show that filing a formal discovery motion would have yielded exculpatory information that the open file policy did not yield. He has not done so. Admittedly, a defendant who does not file a written request for discovery under rule 12 cannot on appeal assign error to the failure of the prosecutor to disclose the material or information described in rule 16(a)(1) to (5). Booker, 709 P.2d at 346. However, Parsons has not proffered any evidence that such undisclosed material or information existed. Speculation that it exists is not sufficient to meet the prejudice component of the Strickland test. Fernandez v. Cook, 870 P.2d 870, 877 (Utah 1993) (On many occasions, this court has reiterated that proof of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be a speculative matter but must be a demonstrable reality.).