Opinion ID: 2334182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Disclose Entire Videotape

Text: At trial, the State entered the written statement into evidence. The State then began to play the videotape of the defendant's statement, at which time the trial court stopped the tape because the tape showed investigators telling the defendant about the possible range of punishment for the crimes of which he was accused. At this time, defense counsel asked if this was the same videotape that had been furnished to the defendant and had been played at the suppression hearing. Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court and counsel for both parties determined that the first few minutes of the interview were not copied when a duplicate of the original was made for the State and the defense. [5] The State's actions were in violation of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(B), which provides: Upon a defendant's request, the state shall disclose to the defendant . . . (i) the defendant's relevant written or recorded statements, or copies thereof. . . . [6] Additionally, the State's failure to disclose the entire videotape is a violation of due process. The United States Supreme Court has held that `suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.' Sample v. State, 82 S.W.3d 267, 270 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)). At issue is the appropriate penalty for failing to disclose the complete video. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2) provides: If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court may: (A) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection; specify its time, place, and manner; and prescribe other just terms or conditions; (B) grant a continuance; (C) prohibit the party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; or (D) enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. The defendant moved for the charges against him to be dismissed. However, instead of declaring a mistrial, the trial court sanctioned the State by excluding the use of the tape at trial. Although Rule 16 does not explicitly provide as one of the sanctions the dismissal of the indictment after failure to comply with a discovery request or order, the rule does provide that the court may enter such sanction as it deems just under the circumstances. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(D). This opened-ended language of the Rule authorizes the dismissal of an indictment in certain circumstances when a court would otherwise have no effective sanction for failure to comply with its order. State v. Collins, 35 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tenn.Crim.App.2000); see also State v. Freseman, 684 S.W.2d 106, 107 (Tenn. Crim.App.1984) (suggesting that if a trial court has the authority to dismiss a case as a sanction for failure to comply with discovery orders, it is implied authority pursuant to Tenn. R.Crim. P. 16(d)(2)). However, the Rule provides the court with many other methods for assuring compliance without resorting to such extreme measures. A trial court has wide discretion in fashioning a remedy for non-compliance with a discovery order, and the sanction should fit the circumstances of the case. See Collins, 35 S.W.3d at 585. In this case, the trial court determined that the appropriate sanction was to prohibit the introduction of the videotape by the State. The court was able to give a curative instruction to the jury regarding the portion of the video that had been played, which contained the discussion of possible sentence ranges, thus negating any prejudice that may have occurred. Given the discretion afforded the trial court in fashioning the penalty, we conclude that the trial court's decision to suppress the videotape was sufficient penalty for the State's discovery violation.