Opinion ID: 858503
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure Orders and Sanctions

Text: [¶55] In Kovach’s next assignment of error, Kovach contends that the district court erred both in ordering Kovach to disclose statements for witnesses not listed as defense witnesses and in the sanctions the court imposed for Kovach’s violation of that disclosure order. Kovach alleges that the disclosure order and the sanctions violated the Rules of Criminal Procedure and infringed on his constitutional protections. With regard to Kovach’s constitutional challenge to the pretrial disclosure order, we conclude that Kovach presented the district court with an insufficient factual basis to evaluate this claim, and we therefore affirm the court’s rejection of that claim. With regard to the 21 alleged procedural violations, we agree that the court erred in requiring Kovach to disclose statements of witnesses not listed as witnesses for the defense and in imposing an evidentiary sanction outside the sanctions identified in W.R.Cr. P. 26.2. We conclude, however, that the error was harmless and therefore find no reversible error in the orders.
[¶56] On December 29, 2010, shortly after filing its charges against Kovach, the State filed a motion for production of witness statements in defendant’s possession. Kovach objected to the State’s request, contending such statements were protected by the attorney work product doctrine, that their production would violate Kovach’s right against self incrimination, and that the statements were not discoverable under W.R.Cr.P. 16. On October 17, 2011, the district court held a motions hearing during which it addressed, among other pretrial issues, Kovach’s objection to producing witness statements. During that hearing, the court invited Kovach’s counsel to submit the witness statements for an in camera review to determine whether the statements revealed attorney work product or could be construed as self incriminating, and whether portions of the statements should be redacted before disclosure. [¶57] Kovach did not submit the disputed witness statements to the district court for an in camera review, and on November 14, 2011, the court, pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 26.2, issued an order requiring that Kovach produce the requested witness statements by December 16, 2011, which was ten days before trial. On December 1, 2011, Kovach filed an Expedited Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Filing and Resolution of Petition for Writ of Mandamus. In that motion, Kovach objected to the district court’s order to produce witness statements, stating: 3. Defendant believes that the order violates his constitutional right to counsel and is in violation of the Wyoming Criminal Rules of Procedure, specifically, Rule 16. 4. If Defendant’s counsel produces the statements, then Defendant does not have a remedy on appeal as the bell cannot be un-rung in this matter. 5. Defendant’s rights involved in this issue go to the heart of our legal process and the rights outlined in the Wyoming and United States Constitutions. 6. Defendant requests that the proceedings be stayed pending the filing and resolution of a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (now referred to as a writ of review) with the Wyoming Supreme Court. 22 [¶58] On December 2, 2011, Kovach provided notice to the district court that he was electing not to comply with the court’s order to produce witness statements, with the exception of the statement of Isaac Zimmerman. Kovach further informed the court that he had elected to accept a mandatory sanction under W.R.Cr.P. 26.2 of not being permitted to call in his case in chief the witnesses whose statements he refused to disclose. On that same date, the court held a hearing on Kovach’s motion to stay proceedings, during which the court commented: I’ve received a notice from the Defendant today that the Defendant elects not to comply with that order to deliver those statements except for Isaac Zimmerman, I did review that briefly before I came into court just the first part is what I reviewed, frankly I haven’t devoted a lot of time or attention to it. It appears to me that the Defendant has taken a position that the exclusive and mandatory sanctions are those that are provided in Rule 26.2. I do not agree with that, but I’m not going to make that decision at this point because we haven’t hit December 16th yet. If we hit December 16th and those statements are not produced then you’re going to require me to take a position and I would point out that you carefully exam[ine] Rule 42 of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure and the consequences that can come under Rule 42 and Rule 42.1 because I don’t know that I agree that Rule 26.2 provides for the exclusive sanctions for failure to produce statements. .... What I think would be consistent, and I’d have to devote some research and thought to this, is to limit the ability of a defendant to cross-examine one of these witnesses, without turning over the statements as I’ve ordered, to only that testimony raised on direct-examination by the State, in other words, you can’t come in with new, new information based upon statements that you know about that you refused to produce and you didn’t give the State notice about that in time. I may consider and I will research my ability to do that as a potential reason to limit the scope of examination by counsel for the Defendant. [¶59] On December 5, 2011, Kovach filed in the Wyoming Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Review. Through that petition, Kovach requested that this Court either vacate the district court’s order requiring defendant’s disclosure of witness statements, or in the alternative, order that the remedies for Kovach’s non-compliance are limited to those set 23 forth in Rule 26.2. On December 16, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Kovach’s petition for writ of review. [¶60] Although the record does not show when it happened or in what form the district court issued its order, at some point after December 16th and before trial, the court responded to Kovach’s failure to comply with its disclosure order. The court apparently rejected Kovach’s self-prescribed sanction and instead imposed the sanction it referenced in the earlier hearing, ordering that for those witnesses for whom Kovach had refused to provide statements, Kovach’s cross-examination would be limited to the scope of the State’s direct examination. Not only does the record not contain an order imposing the sanction, it also does not reflect an objection by Kovach to the sanction. This Court’s knowledge of the sanction and Kovach’s response to the sanction is limited to the exchanges during trial related to Kovach’s cross-examination of two witnesses for whom he had refused to disclose witness statements, MW and Dan Frear. [¶61] During MW’s testimony, the following transpired: COURT: Cross-Examination. [Defense Counsel]: Thank you, your Honor. COURT: Based on Rule 26.2(e), [Defense Counsel], you’re limited to strictly the scope of Direct, that’s of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure. [Bench Conference] [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I would also ask that [Defense Counsel] be precluded from using any statements that he refused to produce for impeachment purposes with [MW]. COURT: [Defense Counsel], your position about that? [Defense Counsel]: No objection. COURT: Motion granted. .... Q. Is it safe to say as you were standing there, … , that you related to Jesse (sic) Ribelin? A. Yes. Q. And is that because of your personal experiences? [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning. COURT: Sustained. [Defense Counsel]: It goes to state of mind, your Honor. 24 COURT: S h e a l s o s a i d t h a t s h e r e l a t e d , i t’s sustained. You got her state of mind. Q. Were you a victim of a violent attack? COURT: This is irrelevant. [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, can I make an offer of proof, please? COURT: Over at the bench. [Bench Conference] [Defense Counsel]: [Prosecutor] has asked about -- insinuated that she is lying about what she has done, that she is on Mr. Kovach’s side because of her relationship with Mr. Kovach, I think that I have a right to at least explore what her state of mind is. COURT: What’s your offer of proof? [Defense Counsel]: Y o u r H o n o r , t h e w i t n e s s’s experience in this regard is crucial. The witness was subjected to a brutal attack that she had experienced, that’s why she used the word attacked. When people are exposed to horrific situations, those experiences shape their perceptions. Her own experience in that regard is what prompted the use of the word attack and it goes directly to her state of mind, your Honor, and I should be able to explore that, this is Cross-Examination. COURT: If you would have turned over the statements it would be. Denied. [¶62] Dan Frear testified just after MW. During Mr. Frear’s testimony, the district court issued the same admonition concerning defense counsel’s cross-examination, after which defense counsel cross examined Mr. Frear regarding his testimony that Kovach may have told him he had fired his gun during his altercation with the Ribelins: COURT: Cross-Examination. Again, pursuant to Rule 26.2(e) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure you’re limited to Cross-Examination only within the scope of Direct Examination. [Defense Counsel]: Thank you, your Honor. .... Q. Mr. Frear, you said you don’t recall exactly the conversation you had with Mr. Kovach; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And why don’t you exactly remember that conversation? A. One is over a year ago and there was quite amounts of alcohol drinking. 25 Q. You had been drinking all day, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember even how much you had been drinking? COURT: This is beyond the scope of Direct, ask a different question. [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I have nothing further. [¶63] On January 20, 2012, Kovach filed a motion for new trial in which he contended he was entitled to a new trial based on the alleged Brady violations and because the district court abused its discretion under Rule 26.2 by limiting defense counsel’s crossexamination of MW and Dan Frear. With respect to the discovery sanctions, Kovach’s argument was one sentence which argued that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 26.2. On February 21, 2012, Kovach filed a reply in support of his new trial motion in which he pointed out that the State had not responded to his Rule 26.2 argument, and then for the first time, he asserted that the district court’s limitations on his cross-examination also violated his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and effective cross-examination. [¶64] The district court denied Kovach’s motion for a new trial on the ground that Kovach had failed to show how the limitations on his cross-examination denied him a fair trial. On appeal, Kovach presents several arguments relating to, first, the district court’s order requiring Kovach to produce witness statements, and second, the court’s sanction for Kovach’s failure to comply with its disclosure order. With respect to the order requiring disclosure of the witness statements, Kovach argues that the required disclosure violated his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in that the disclosure would interfere with counsel’s ability to make reasonable investigations. He further argues that the district court misconstrued the requirements of Rule 26.2 and ordered a disclosure that violated Rule 16. With respect to the court’s sanction for violation of the disclosure order, Kovach argues that the court exceeded its authority under Rule 26.2 and that the sanction violated his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and effective cross-examination. B. Disclosure Order: Impact on Constitutional Rights [¶65] We address first Kovach’s argument that the district court’s order requiring the defense to make a pretrial disclosure of witness statements violated his constitutional rights. Kovach initially objected to the State’s request for the statements on the ground that such a disclosure would violate his privilege against self incrimination and would require disclosure of attorney work product. After the district court later ordered that Kovach disclose the witness statements for trial, Kovach again objected, arguing generally that the required disclosure violated his constitutional right to counsel. On 26 appeal, Kovach has expanded his argument and contends that the required disclosure was improper because it would violate his right to effective assistance of counsel by undermining his attorney’s ability to conduct a reasonable investigation. Although Kovach’s constitutional argument has been something of a moving target, our more fundamental concern is that the argument lacks a factual basis to allow for its consideration. [¶66] Kovach cites no authority for the proposition that requiring a criminal defendant to make a pretrial disclosure of witness statements is a per se violation of that defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel. Nor has Kovach provided a factual record to demonstrate how the specific witness statements at issue in this case would have revealed information that intruded on the attorney client relationship or otherwise interfered with counsel’s effectiveness. From this Court’s own research, we are unable to discern a bright line rule governing the constitutionality of ordering pretrial disclosures by a criminal defendant. As will be discussed hereinafter, the constitutional questions relating to pretrial discovery against a criminal defendant are instead largely fact sensitive, depending for their resolution upon the circumstances surrounding the required disclosure and the information that the disclosure will reveal. It is for this reason that we ultimately affirm the district court’s rejection of Kovach’s constitutional challenge to the disclosure order. Kovach failed to provide the district court with a factual basis sufficient to allow that court to consider the alleged constitutional infringement, and this Court is likewise without any basis on which to judge the alleged infringement. [¶67] To begin our discussion, we briefly outline in general terms the constitutional questions that may arise when allowing pretrial discovery against a criminal defendant. We do not intend this to be an exhaustive summary of these questions, or to suggest how this Court would rule when presented with a properly framed challenge to a disclosure order. Rather, we wish simply to illustrate that the constitutional questions relating to pretrial discovery against a criminal defendant are largely fact sensitive, depending for their resolution upon the circumstances surrounding the required disclosure or discovery and the information that the disclosure or discovery will reveal. [¶68] We turn first to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970). In that case, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a Florida rule requiring a defendant to provide pretrial notice of any alibi defense. In upholding the rule, the Court recognized “the ease with which an alibi can be fabricated” and “the State’s interest in protecting itself against an eleventh-hour defense.” Id., 399 U.S. at 81, 90 S.Ct. at 1896. The Court then concluded: In the case before us, the notice-of-alibi rule by itself in no way affected petitioner’s crucial decision to call alibi witnesses or added to the legitimate pressures leading to that course of action. At most, the rule only compelled petitioner 27 to accelerate the timing of his disclosure, forcing him to divulge at an earlier date information that the petitioner from the beginning planned to divulge at trial. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment privilege entitles a defendant as a matter of constitutional right to await the end of the State’s case before announcing the nature of his defense, any more than it entitles him to await the jury’s verdict on the State’s case-in-chief before deciding whether or not to take the stand himself. Petitioner concedes that absent the notice-of-alibi rule the Constitution would raise no bar to the court’s granting the State a continuance at trial on the ground of surprise as soon as the alibi witness is called. Nor would there be selfincrimination problems if, during that continuance, the State was permitted to do precisely what it did here prior to trial: take the deposition of the witness and find rebuttal evidence. But if so utilizing a continuance is permissible under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, then surely the same result may be accomplished through pretrial discovery, as it was here, avoiding the necessity of a disrupted trial. We decline to hold that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guarantees the defendant the right to surprise the State with an alibi defense. Williams, 399 U.S. at 85-86, 90 S.Ct. at 1898 (footnotes omitted). [¶69] Three years later, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973). In Wardius, the Court ruled Oregon’s alibi notice rule unconstitutional, holding that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids enforcement of alibi rules unless reciprocal discovery rights are given to criminal defendants.” Id., 412 U.S. at 472, 93 S.Ct. at 2211. In so holding, the Court did not retreat from its holding in Williams. It reasoned: Notice-of-alibi rules, now in use in a large and growing number of States, are based on the proposition that the ends of justice will best be served by a system of liberal discovery which gives both parties the maximum possible amount of information with which to prepare their cases and thereby reduces the possibility of surprise at trial. … The growth of such discovery devices is a salutary development which, by increasing the evidence available to both parties, enhances the fairness of the adversary system. As we recognized in Williams, nothing in the Due Process Clause 28 precludes States from experimenting with systems of broad discovery designed to achieve these goals. ‘The adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played. We find ample room in that system, at least as far as ‘due process’ is concerned, for (a rule) which is designed to enhance the search for truth in the criminal trial by insuring both the defendant and the State ample opportunity to investigate certain facts crucial to the determination of guilt or innocence.’ 399 U.S., at 82 (footnote omitted), 90 S.Ct., at 1896. Although the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded, … it does speak to the balance of forces between the accused and his accuser. … …[I]n the absence of a strong showing of state interests to the contrary, discovery must be a two-way street. The State may not insist that trials be run as a ‘search for truth’ so far as defense witnesses are concerned, while maintaining ‘poker game’ secrecy for its own witnesses. It is fundamentally unfair to require a defendant to divulge the details of his own case while at the same time subjecting him to the hazard of surprise concerning refutation of the very pieces of evidence which he disclosed to the State. Wardius, 412 U.S. at 474-76, 93 S.Ct. at 2211-13 (footnotes and citations omitted). [¶70] In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). At issue in Nobles was disclosure of a defense investigator’s report containing statements taken from prosecution witnesses. Id., 422 U.S. at 227, 95 S.Ct. at 2164. The trial court did not order a pretrial disclosure of the report, but it did order that it would examine the report in camera, would excise all reference to matters not relevant to the precise statements at issue, and would order disclosure if the investigator testified as to the witness interviews and statements. Id., 422 U.S. at 229, 95 S.Ct. at 2165. After defense counsel stated that he would not comply with such a disclosure order, the trial court barred the investigator from testifying about the witness interviews. Id. The Court upheld the trial court’s order, explaining: It w a s … apparent to the trial judge that the investigator’s report was highly relevant to the critical issue of credibility. In this context, production of the report might 29 substantially enhance ‘the search for truth,’ Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S., at 82, 90 S.Ct., at 1896. We must determine whether compelling its production was precluded by some privilege available to the defense in the circumstances of this case. .... The Court of Appeals concluded that the Fifth Amendment renders criminal discovery ‘basically a one-way street.’ 501 F.2d at 154. Like many generalizations in constitutional law, this one is too broad. The relationship between the accused’s Fifth Amendment rights and the prosecution’s ability to discover materials at trial must be identified in a more discriminating manner. The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is an ‘intimate and personal one,’ which protects ‘a private inner sanctum of individual feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract selfcondemnation.’ … As we noted in Couch, supra, 409 U.S., at 328, 93 S.Ct., at 616, the ‘privilege is a personal privilege: it adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him.’ In this instance disclosure of the relevant portions of the defense investigator’s report would not impinge on the fundamental values protected by the Fifth Amendment. The court’s order was limited to statements allegedly made by third parties who were available as witnesses to both the prosecution and the defense. Respondent did not prepare the report, and there is no suggestion that the portions subject to the disclosure order reflected any information that he conveyed to the investigator. The fact that these statements of third parties were elicited by a defense investigator on respondent’s behalf does not convert them into respondent’s personal communications. Requiring their production from the investigator therefore would not in any sense compel respondent to be a witness against himself or extort communications from him. We thus conclude that the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, being personal to the defendant, does not extend to the testimony or statements of 30 third parties called as witnesses at trial. The Court of Appeals’ reliance on this constitutional guarantee as a bar to the disclosure here ordered was misplaced. Nobles, 422 U.S. at 232-234, 95 S.Ct. at 2167-2168 (footnotes and citations omitted). [¶71] The final U.S. Supreme Court case we include in our discussion is Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988). In Taylor, a trial court, as a sanction against a criminal defendant for failing to identify a witness in response to a pretrial discovery request, refused to allow the undisclosed witness to testify. Id., 484 U.S. at 402, 108 S.Ct. at 650. The Court held that such a sanction was not absolutely prohibited by the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and found no constitutional error on the specific facts of the case. Id. In upholding the sanction, the Court observed the need for discovery in criminal proceedings: The principle that undergirds the defendant’s right to present exculpatory evidence is also the source of essential limitations on the right. The adversary process could not function effectively without adherence to rules of procedure that govern the orderly presentation of facts and arguments to provide each party with a fair opportunity to assemble and submit evidence to contradict or explain the opponent’s case. The trial process would be a shambles if either party had an absolute right to control the time and content of his witnesses’ testimony. Neither may insist on the right to interrupt the opposing party’s case, and obviously there is no absolute right to interrupt the deliberations of the jury to present newly discovered evidence. The State’s interest in the orderly conduct of a criminal trial is sufficient to justify the imposition and enforcement of firm, though not always inflexible, rules relating to the identification and presentation of evidence. The defendant’s right to compulsory process is itself designed to vindicate the principle that the “ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts.” … Rules that provide for pretrial discovery of an opponent’s witnesses serve the same high purpose. Discovery, l i k e crossexamination, minimizes the risk that a judgment will be predicated on incomplete, misleading, or even deliberately fabricated testimony. The “State’s interest in protecting itself against an eleventh-hour defense” is merely one component 31 of the broader public interest in a full and truthful disclosure of critical facts. Taylor, 484 U.S. at 410-12, 108 S.Ct. at 654 (footnotes and citations omitted). [¶72] In Taylor, the Supreme Court explained that, although the Sixth Amendment right to present a defense is fundamental, it is not absolute if outweighed by countervailing public interests. Taylor, 484 U.S. at 414, 108 S.Ct. at 656. The Court offered several non-exclusive factors to be considered in determining whether a sanction against a defendant for a pretrial discovery violation will impermissibly infringe on a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights: The integrity of the adversary process, which depends both on the presentation of reliable evidence and the rejection of unreliable evidence, the interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice, and the potential prejudice to the truth-determining function of the trial process must also weigh in the balance. A trial judge may certainly insist on an explanation for a party’s failure to comply with a request to identify his or her witnesses in advance of trial. If that explanation reveals that the omission was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the Compulsory Process Clause simply to exclude the witness’ testimony. Taylor, 484 U.S. at 414-15, 108 S.Ct. at 656 (footnotes and citations omitted); see also Gruwell v. State, 2011 WY 67, ¶¶ 11-17, 254 P.3d 223, 227-29 (Wyo. 2011); Breazeale v. State, 2011 WY 10, ¶¶ 33-35, 245 P.3d 834, 843-44 (Wyo. 2011); Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶¶ 5-9, 63 P.3d 875, 878-81 (Wyo. 2003); Lawson v. State, 994 P.2d 943, 946-47 (Wyo. 2000) (Wyoming cases applying Taylor factors to exclusion of evidence as sanction for defense pretrial notice violations). [¶73] What the Supreme Court’s rulings in Williams, Wardius, Nobles, and Taylor instruct, and what is implicit in this Court’s above-cited rulings, is that there is no absolute constitutional bar to requiring pretrial discovery or a pretrial disclosure from a criminal defendant. Indeed, the limits on such pretrial disclosures remain the subject of much debate among scholars. Does the accelerated disclosure doctrine of Williams take into 32 account the potential for such disclosure being utilized by the prosecution to obtain evidence of the formative elements of the crime that would not have been obtained if disclosure was required only after the prosecution established a prima facie case? Commentators taking a narrow view of Williams argue that it does not and that the Court would distinguish Williams if fairly faced with such a case. Williams, they note, simply did not present a situation in which pretrial disclosure would “accelerate” a choice that would otherwise never have to be made because the prosecution, without leads provided by the disclosure, would not have established a prima facie case in its case-in-chief. Indeed, they argue, the facts there clearly negated such a possibility. In describing the prosecution’s use of the alibi disclosure, the Court noted that the prosecution had responded by laying the groundwork for impeaching the alibi witness and establishing by independent evidence the