Opinion ID: 2321068
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Law Enforcement Reports

Text: The defendant next contends that the state violated Rule 16 by failing to furnish him with FBI reports, known as Form 302 reports (302s), [3] about uncharged drug purchases that the informant made before August 7, 2003, the date of the first offense charged in the criminal information. Detective Douglas testified that before he made his first purchase on August 7, 2003, he had several opportunities to observe Gonzalez dealing drugs. Specifically, Det. Douglas testified that he met on several occasions with another person [and] with Mr. Gonzalez. However, according to the witness, [t]hose meetings did not amount to charges so they are not included [in his reports in this case]. [4] Detective Douglas also revealed for the first time during cross-examination that he had prepared reports of these earlier incidents, which were in the custody of the FBI. It is undisputed that these records had not been provided to defendant during discovery, which prompted a motion to strike the witness's testimony and a motion for a mistrial. To support his motion, defense counsel argued that he unwillingly opened the door to evidence of uncharged drug offenses because he did not know about the 302s, and that defendant's trial strategy had been adversely affected by the nondisclosure. In reply, the prosecutor stated that she did not find out about the 302s until after trial commenced. The defendant agreed that the nondisclosure was not deliberate. The trial justice, although finding a Rule 16 violation, determined that he was not confronted with deliberate nondisclosure by the prosecution and declined to pass the case. We agree with the finding that the violation was not intentional; it is the remedy that we deem erroneous. The issue before us is not whether the state committed a discovery violation by failing to furnish defendant with the FBI reports. Instead, the issue is whether a mistrial was required. On the face of this record, we answer this question in the affirmative. As noted, a trial justice's decision to impose a sanction for a Rule 16 violation will not be set aside absent a clear abuse of discretion. Musumeci, 717 A.2d at 60. In the case before us, after the trial justice found a violation, he denied defendant's motion for a mistrial or to strike Det. Douglas's testimony, having concluded that defendant's theory of the case was not undermined by this new information. The trial justice found as follows: Granted [defendant] contends that he has not had a chance to prepare his defense in light of this information but what comes out in the information essentially as far as the activity of the defendant is concerned is consistent with his behavior in August. So I'm not sure that he's harmed that much by learning of it, except that he gets it at this late hour. I think he is entitled to some relief and there should be some kind of sanction. As I see it, his ability to cross-examine and impeach this witness now in light of what the witness stated on direct is probably as fair a method as any to resolve the problem. Apparently, this sanction consisted of allowing defendant to cross-examine Det. Douglas with any information in the newly disclosed reports that could impeach his prior testimony, yet bar the state from using the 302s to rehabilitate the witness on redirect. The trial justice believed that in so ruling, he was completely tying the [s]tate's hands, as the prosecutor put it, but he decided that that was the best way to remedy the violation. We are of the opinion that defendant was deprived of evidence tending to show prior criminal conduct by the accused, the person whose fate was before the jury. We are not persuaded that any sanction short of a mistrial could have remedied the prejudice in this case. Before this Court, defense counsel argued, as he did in Superior Court, that he would not have asked the witness if, on August 7, 2003, he had approached defendant, a man you never met in your life and he [sold] you drugs if he had been provided with the 302s and knew that the witness would tell the jury that he and Gonzalez had become acquainted during the course of several drug transactions that occurred before the charged offenses. On several occasions, this Court has held that a mistrial may be the only appropriate sanction for a discovery violation. See, e.g., Evans, 668 A.2d at 1259; State v. Simpson, 595 A.2d 803, 808 (R.I.1991); Darcy, 442 A.2d at 902. In Darcy, 442 A.2d at 902, we declared that the trial justice abused his discretion by failing to grant a mistrial when the state introduced a highly prejudicial statement of the defendant after indicating that it did not intend to use any statements of defendant at trial. We vacated the conviction because, we concluded, the use of the statement in such a circumstance violated defendant's due process rights. Id. at 902, 903. In Simpson, 595 A.2d at 806-07, the state failed to disclose that the police had conducted a gunshot residue test on the defendants after they were arrested for murder. This information was not disclosed to the defendants before trial, and the trial justice denied a requested continuance to permit defendants to obtain their own expert. Id. at 807. We held that the production of this information in the midst of trial completely distracted defense counsel from their former strategic plans to present the defense. Id. We noted that, although trial lawyers have to adapt to changing circumstances during the trial, very few trial lawyers are superhuman. Id. at 808. We concluded that [w]hen, because of a failure to furnish discovery on the part of the state, a highly significant piece of information, hitherto unexpected, becomes available and when that information has a potential to alter the course of the defense completely, counsel is reasonably entitled to an effective remedy. Id. We are satisfied that, in the case before us, a mistrial was warranted and a continuance or any other lesser measure could not counterbalance this evidence or remedy the fact that defendant's trial strategy was neutralized. Although the nondisclosure was unintentional, the prejudice was significant. After reviewing the record in this case, we are of the opinion that the trial justice erred in finding that the prejudice to defendant was minimal. The jury learned about prior, uncharged criminal conduct of the defendant, and the defense strategy was irreparably altered. In light of defense counsel's representation that, had he known of those reports beforehand, he would not have engaged in that line of questioning, we are satisfied that the refusal to pass the case was a clear abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and remand this case for a new trial. [5]