Opinion ID: 1613782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Sickler's discovery motion and his motion to suppress.

Text: Sickler filed a five-page motion for discovery. In response to this motion, the trial court entered its standard discovery order pursuant to SDCL ch. 23A-13 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In furtherance of justice a trial court has inherent power on behalf of an accused in a criminal proceeding to compel production and to permit inspection of evidence in the possession or under the control of the States Attorney. State v. Wade, 83 S.D. 337, 343, 159 N.W.2d 396, 400 (1968). Furthermore, [a]n accused's application for inspection or disclosure is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court which may be granted as an aid to the ascertainment of the truth or as a matter of fundamental fairness. Id. The trial court's order included the following: (1) Any relevant written or recorded statements made by defendant; (2) The substance of any oral statement which the State intends to offer; (3) Recorded testimony by defendant before the grand jury relating to the offense; (4) Copy of defendant's prior criminal record; (5) Books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof which are material to the preparation of defendant's case or intended for use by the State as evidence in chief or were obtained from or belong to defendant. (6) Results or reports of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests or experiments. Once the trial court has ordered production of certain evidence, State must expeditiously carry out and obey those orders. State v. Sahlie, 90 S.D. 682, 245 N.W.2d 476 (1976). The hearing on the discovery motion was March 7, 1991. The trial court entered its order the same day. On April 10, 1991, Sickler renewed his motion for discovery since not all of the requested materials had been provided. The trial was scheduled for April 12, 1991. On April 11, 1991, the trial court held a hearing on the issue. By that time, Sickler had received a transcript from the sheriff of the radio log and a copy of Sickler's prior criminal and driving record. The sheriff's report regarding Sickler's arrest was not provided because no such written report was ever made. Additionally, Sickler wanted information on the type of machine State used to test the blood; the machine's name and model number and how it operated; whether it had been tested; and any other information which would have a bearing on the equipment's integrity. This information from the State Chemist on the testing equipment had not been provided by the state's attorney. At the April 11th hearing, Sickler made a motion to suppress the results of the blood test and the State Chemist's testimony because he had not received from the state's attorney the information on the testing equipment and procedures used as had been required by the trial court's order. This motion was denied. The trial court made the following comments: Counsel, although I'm not happy with the fact you didn't receive the information you requested, nevertheless, the State has accepted and used blood tests in these matters for a long period of time. And the method by which the State Chemists have been reporting the testing in this matter, has been an accepted method and an accepted type of test in this matter. On the day of the trial, Sickler's counsel was given an opportunity, over the lunch hour, to interview the State Chemist concerning both the blood test and the equipment used in analyzing blood. Although Sickler's counsel spoke with the State Chemist before he testified, he did not ask the State Chemist any questions on cross-examination. This Court will overturn the trial court's decision to suppress or not to suppress if we find the trial court has exercised its discretion to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence. State v. Smith, 477 N.W.2d 27, 31 (S.D.1991); State v. Zachodni, 466 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1991). Based on the record in this case, we believe the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It is worth noting that [t]he state's conduct in the present case is hardly in keeping with the prosecutor's `overriding obligation, shared by the court, to see that defendant receives a fair trial, however guilty he may be.' Sahlie, 245 N.W.2d at 479 (quoting State v. Sha, 292 Minn. 182, 193 N.W.2d 829, 831 (1972)). However, we believe that the prosecutor's violations of the court's discovery order resulted only in harmless error.