Opinion ID: 2120717
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Duty to Disclose Promptly

Text: ¶ 99. Even an interpretation of the statute requiring an absolute duty to disclose certain information within the possession, custody or control of the state does not settle the issue. For instance, where the prosecutor has made disclosure to the defendant, as here, the court may have to decide whether the disclosure was timely. ¶ 100. This case is governed by Wis. Stat. § 971.23(7), which provides that, upon discovery of additional materials, the prosecutor has a duty to promptly notify the other party of the existence of the additional material (emphasis added). ¶ 101. In this case, Chaussee was told about the DeLao interview on Sunday, July 25, 1999, and the prosecutor notified the defendant three days later, within minutes of learning about it herself. ¶ 102. The majority concludes that promptness required the prosecutor to make disclosure of Chaussee's new information before trial, probably on Monday, July 26, the only work day before trial. Because the circuit court determined that the state made timely disclosure, the majority must reach its opposite conclusion as a matter of law. In deciding this issue, the majority gives short shrift to the fact that Chaussee did not have any written report from Prioletta and did not immediately see how Prioletta's oral summary of the DeLao interview related to the trial. [11] It also ignores the circuit court's finding that the DeLao interview was not relevant to the charges in her case; the interview was relevant only to her impeachment. By insisting that the interview information had to be disclosed to the defendant before trial, the majority opinion treats the timing of the prosecutor's disclosure the same as if the prosecutor had made no disclosure at all.