Opinion ID: 1472872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The wording of the subpoena duces tecum

Text: The third item in the subpoena duces tecum here called for [n]ames of all partners, officers, employees and accountants employed or retained by [the landlord] for the years 1975 through and including 1981. The appellants contend here that the demand was framed in the nature of an interrogatory filed in a civil suit. It called for the production of no document; rather, it called for the creation of an answer to a request for information. An oft quoted passage on subpoenas duces tecum is found in 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2200 (1) (iv) (McNaughton rev. 1961): A peculiarity of the subpoena duces tecum is that, in the nature of things, it must specify, with as much precision as is fair and feasible, the particular documents desired. This is because the witness ought not to be required to bring what is not needed, and he cannot know what is needed unless he is informed beforehand. (Emphasis in original.) To similar effect see 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 14 (1976); 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 25 (a) and (e) (1957); 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries ; and Annot., 23 A.L.R.2d 862 (1952). There are state court decisions in accord with this proposition. See, e.g., Nabors v. State, 263 Ark. 409, 411, 565 S.W.2d 598 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1067 (1979); People v. Reynolds, 350 Ill. 11, 20, 182 N.E. 754 (1932); Oakland County v. Bice, 386 Mich. 143, 149, 191 N.W.2d 338 (1971); State v. Kelton, 299 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Mo. 1957); Vaughan v. Broadfoot, 267 N.C. 691, 149 S.E.2d 37 (1966); Amer. Car & Fdy. Co. v. Water Co., Appellant, 221 Pa. 529, 535, 70 A. 867 (1908); and Central Soya Company, Inc. v. Henderson, 99 R.I. 388, 396, 208 A.2d 110 (1965). We find no definition of the purpose of a subpoena duces tecum in a criminal context among the Maryland Rules. It is significant, however, that Maryland Rule 115 (a) states that [a] summons to a witness ... may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce books, papers, documents or other tangible things designated therein. The grand jury may designate papers it wishes produced. It may query a witness or witnesses as to their knowledge of certain matters. It has no right, however, to request a witness to construct a document as has been done here. Remanded to Circuit Court for Baltimore City with directions to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued in this case; each party to pay his respective costs. Menchine, J., dissenting: I would hold that there was no right of appeal in this case.