Opinion ID: 2612692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: limitation upon the imposition of the preclusion sanction

Text: There can be no denying that the imposition of the preclusion sanction may result in the defendant's being unable to call witnesses whose testimony might be relevant, material and exculpatory. Therefore, the sanction should be imposed only when no lesser sanction would accomplish the aim of the statute, and then only if the state would be prejudiced if the witness or witnesses were permitted to testify even though the statute had not been complied with. In short, although we hold that the sanction procedures under the discovery statutes are permissible under Article I, section 11, we also hold that the statute must be applied in a reasonable manner by imposing the sanction which will infringe least upon the defendant's rights and which will achieve the goal of the statute. At trial, after defense counsel's opening statement, the prosecution objected to defense counsel's statement that he would present witnesses, noting that counsel had not responded to a letter requesting discovery or otherwise complied with ORS 135.835. Upon finding that defense counsel had failed to comply with ORS 135.835, the trial court directed him to make his witnesses available for interviews during the noon recess. The prosecutor attempted to interview the witnesses then, but was unable to do so because defense counsel interposed himself, insisting that his witnesses answer no questions. When court reconvened, the prosecuting attorney reported this development. The trial court allowed one of the two witnesses to testify, but ruled that as a sanction for counsel's ongoing obstruction of the discovery process, the defense would be precluded from calling the defendant's girlfriend as a witness. The trial court properly ordered that the witness be made available for interview, a remedy short of preclusion. Conceivably, this remedy would have avoided any prejudice to the prosecution. However, the defendant's attorney thwarted the court's efforts to avoid prejudice to the defendant and to the state, with the result that the state, in its cross-examination of the witness, was prejudiced by its inability to talk to the witness in advance. Although the witnesses need not have talked to the state, compare State v. York, 291 Or. 535, 541, 632 P.2d 1261 (1981), the conduct of the defendant's lawyer in preventing access to the witnesses, in and of itself, created prejudice to the prosecutor in thwarting its efforts to investigate the case and prepare for cross-examination of the witnesses. We find support for this conclusion in United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). There, the critical issue was the identification of the accused by two prosecution witnesses. The defense, attempting to impeach the credibility of these witnesses, repeatedly asked them about statements they had made, which were allegedly recorded in the written report of a defense investigator. The questions implied that the investigator's report showed that the witnesses had been unsure of their identification of defendant before trial. The trial court ruled that if the investigator testified about these statements, the defense would have to make relevant portions of his report available to the prosecution. When the defense announced that it would not comply with this condition, the trial court ruled that the investigator could not testify as to the interviews. Upholding this condition on the investigator's testimony, the Supreme Court held that under the circumstances, this was an appropriate means of enforcing the legitimate demands of the adversarial system, saying: The court's preclusion sanction was an entirely proper method of assuring compliance with its order. Respondent's argument that this ruling deprived him of the Sixth Amendment rights to compulsory process and cross-examination misconceives the issue. The District Court did not bar the investigator's testimony. Cf. Washington v. Texas, 388 US 14, 19, 18 LEd2d 1019, 87 SCt 1920 [1923] (1967). It merely prevented respondent from presenting to the jury a partial view of the credibility issue by adducing the investigator's testimony and thereafter refusing to disclose the contemporaneous report that might offer further critical insights. The Sixth Amendment does not confer the right to present testimony free from the legitimate demands of the adversarial system; one cannot invoke the Sixth Amendment as a justification for presenting what might have been a half-truth.    422 U.S. at 241, 95 S.Ct. at 2171. Although the absence of a previous opportunity to talk to a witness may have no effect upon the cross-examination of the witness, we have no hesitation in saying that the opportunity to talk to a witness prior to the witness's testimony is, in many cases, of inestimable benefit to the examiner and cross-examiner. The conduct of defendant's attorney resulted in prejudice to the prosecution in its legitimate efforts to prepare for trial because the state was unable to contact the witnesses before trial to talk or attempt to talk to the witnesses, was unable to investigate the background of the witnesses, and was unable to investigate other sources of evidence which might be uncovered by reason of knowing of the existence of the witnesses. The court had no alternative but to either countenance the violation of the discovery statutes or impose the sanction. [6] Preclusion was appropriately ordered in this case. We hold that the preclusion sanction of ORS 135.865 is not inconsistent with Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, provided that the court finds that the prosecution is prejudiced by the defendant's failure to comply with the reciprocal discovery statutes, and provided further, that it appears that no sanction short of preclusion effectively will avoid the prejudice which the defendant's lack of compliance created. [7] We believe that the Supreme Court would reach the same result under the Sixth Amendment, for the reasons expressed above, and see no need further to discuss the federal constitutional question. Affirmed.