Opinion ID: 1922847
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion for Discovery and Production of Evidence

Text: Defendant cites no direct authority for his contention the court erred in refusing to sustain paragraph 5. Instead he repeatedly states deliberate suppression by the State of important evidence would constitute a deprivation of due process and cannot be condoned. A prosecutor is charged with the responsibility of seeing that important evidence is not suppressed so as to deny accused a fair trial. State v. McClain, 256 Iowa 175, 184, 125 N.W.2d 764, 769, 4 A.L.R.3d 134. Although this proposition is most certainly a cornerstone in American criminal law, it does not reach the ultimate question on our first issue. At this point we are concerned only with the correctness of the trial court's ruling on paragraph 5 as presented in defendant's motion. The thrust of the court's denial, as evident from the record, is that the scope of paragraph 5 was too broad and general to be sustained. The question of the extent of discovery permitted by a defendant in a criminal case in Iowa is carefully and thoroughy discussed in State v. Eads, 166 N.W.2d 766 (Iowa 1969). In the cited case the respondent court had allowed the accused's motion in its entirety except for the catchall paragraph asking production of all evidence exculpatory to him. In the course of the opinion, pages 768-771, we said our consideration of the problem before us was confined to the fundamental principle of fair trial which is the ultimate test against which our decision must be measured.    defendant is entitled to no more and he must have no less. However, it is not only the defendant who is entitled to a fair trial. Society, too, represented by the prosecution, has an equal right to one.    [citing authorities]. Many of our cases bearing on discovery are analyzed as the opinion traces history of the problem in Iowa. Although the precise question presented by the catchall paragraph was not reached in State v. Eads, as it was not argued on appeal, much of what is said in discussing the problem is apposite in determining the first issue raised in this assignment. This opinion will not be extended by further quoting from the Eads opinion. However, this court has on other occasions explicitly denied defendant the right to a broad and blind fishing expedition. State v. Kelly, 249 Iowa 1219, 1221-1222, 91 N.W.2d 562, 564; State v. Stump, 254 Iowa 1181, 1199, 119 N.W.2d 210, 220. In State v. Kelly the court said:    The essential requirements for an order to produce documents for inspection are thus stated: `The necessary essentials of a foundation, emphasized in that opinion, (Gordon v. United States, [344 U.S. 414, 420, 73 S.Ct. 369, 374, 97 L.Ed. 447]), and present here, are that the demand was for production of    specific documents and did not propose any broad or blind fishing expedition among documents possessed by the Government on the chance that something impeaching might turn up. Nor was this a demand for statements taken from persons or informants not offered as witnesses.` The emphasis was added by the court in the Jencks case in quoting from the Gordon case. See Jencks v. United States,    [353 U.S. 657, 666-667, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1012, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103, 1111.]. It also appears that the demand must be for documents shown to be in existence.    [citing authorities]. Bearing in mind that the fundamental principle of fair trial is the ultimate test in determining correctness of the trial court's ruling, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying defendant's pretrial motion for discovery and production of evidence.