Opinion ID: 407989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the compulsory process clause

Text: 24 The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant in a criminal case the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The Supreme Court has applied the right to compulsory process to the states as a fundamental element of due process. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). At the same time, a liberal system of reciprocal discovery has been a central feature of modern criminal practice in both the federal and state courts. 3 The purpose of such discovery is to permit thorough preparation for trial and minimize surprise at trial. 4 Discovery orders, like any other procedural requirement, necessitate a means of enforcement. Most states, 5 including Missouri, 6 have provided for exclusion of the evidence the offending party has failed to disclose as a sanction for the violation of a discovery rule. 7 25 States have traditionally been afforded substantial latitude in fashioning their own rules of evidence and criminal procedure. Maggitt v. Wyrick, 533 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir. 1976). As this court has commented, questions relating to the admissibility of evidence are matters of state law and generally do not give rise to constitutional errors which are subject to redress in federal habeas corpus cases. Id. at 385. Nevertheless, state courts must, of course, observe constitutional boundaries. 26 In this case, petitioner alleges a conflict between the exclusion sanction for noncompliance with discovery rules and the right to compulsory process under the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court has expressly disavowed any opinion on whether the exclusion of evidence as a sanction for enforcing discovery rules violates the Sixth Amendment. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 83 n.14, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 1897 n.14, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). See also Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 472 n.4, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 2211 n.4, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973). 8 Two other courts of appeals have directly addressed the constitutional 9 implications of this conflict. 10 In United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. 1981), the Fifth Circuit held that the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment forbids the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence solely as a sanction to enforce discovery rules or orders against criminal defendants. Id. at 243. The Eleventh Circuit applied Davis in United States v. Watson, 669 F.2d 1374 (11th Cir. 1982). 11 27 We do not believe this is the appropriate time to address the difficult constitutional questions posed by the alleged conflict between the Missouri discovery rules and the compulsory process clause. Because of the provisional nature of the trial court ruling, petitioner's abandonment of the issue of character witnesses, and the failure of counsel to make an offer of proof, petitioner has not presented a proper case to review the constitutionality of the trial court ruling. 28 Nevertheless, even if the trial court's exclusion of character witnesses were deemed to be constitutional error, it would not affect the result in this case. If there were constitutional error, it would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 29 The state had a strong case against Thomas. On the evening of March 19, 1976, Jeannette Whit was found dead, partially nude, along the railroad tracks. The facts adduced at trial revealed that the victim was shot and killed with a gun owned by Thomas which he had been carrying on the evening of the crime. Petitioner fled the scene of the crime and was apprehended in an automobile chase shortly after the police heard the shot. A passenger in Thomas' car testified that petitioner appeared to throw something out the car window in the flight from the murder scene. The police found the murder weapon lying along the street. Thomas originally told police that his gun discharged accidentally but later repudiated this statement, disclaiming any knowledge of who shot the victim. In light of the state's strong case against Thomas and petitioner's own inconsistent statements, there is no reasonable possibility that the testimony of any character witnesses, garnered at the last minute, would have affected the jury's verdict. The judgment of the district court, dismissing Thomas' petition, is affirmed. 30 Affirmed.