Opinion ID: 2269351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mandatory discovery under M.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C)

Text: Defendant further argues that, in not revealing the whereabouts of Dorsch before trial, the State failed to comply with M.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C) which states: The attorney for the state shall furnish to the defendant within a reasonable time: ..... (C) A statement describing any matter or information known to the attorney for the state which may not be known to the defendant and which tends to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt as to the offense charged. We have held repeatedly that Rule 16(a) requires a diligent inquiry by prosecutors to discover whether automatically discoverable information exists. See, e.g., State v. Ledger, 444 A.2d 404, 411 (Me.1982); State v. Simmons, 435 A.2d 1090, 1093 (Me. 1981); State v. Thurlow, 414 A.2d 1241, 1244 (Me.1980). Through defendant's motion to continue, the State learned that Dorsch, an essential witness for the defense, could not be located. Thus, if information concerning Dorsch's whereabouts was subject to automatic disclosure under Rule 16(a), the State had a continuing duty to make a diligent inquiry to discover whether such information existed. See M.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(2). Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 16(a) may result in the granting of a new trial. State v. Thurlow, 414 A.2d at 1244. For two reasons defendant fails to establish any basis for relief on appeal. First, there is no evidence in this record to support defendant's contention that the Penobscot County district attorney's office ever handled Dorsch's extradition or had any knowledge of his whereabouts prior to or during defendant's trial. [2] Second, information concerning a potential witness's whereabouts is not the sort of information referred to in Rule 16(a)(1)(C). Automatically discoverable information includes information which tends to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, not information leading to a witness who might provide exculpatory testimony. It is the exculpatory evidence itself that is automatically discoverable, not information leading to the procurement of that evidence. Because defendant has failed to establish that the State did not comply with the mandatory discovery provisions of Rule 16, we decline to grant him a new trial.