Opinion ID: 2679902
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State’s Participation in the Motions Hearing

Text: [¶11] Dube next argues that he was unfairly prejudiced when the court allowed the State to take part in the motions hearing because Dube was compelled to reveal his trial strategy in order to justify his motion in limine. A criminal defendant has both a due process right to obtain evidence that bears on the determination of either guilt or punishment and a Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process to require the production of evidence. See United States v. Tomison, 969 F. Supp. 587, 593 (E.D. Cal. 1997). Rule 17(d) implements both the right to obtain the evidence and to require its production. Cf. id. (considering the constitutional context of the federal counterpart to M.R. Crim. P. 17(d)). Therefore, in order to protect a defendant’s fundamental right to due process, trial courts may consider ex parte applications for pretrial production pursuant to subpoenae duces tecum in limited circumstances where a defendant asserts that he or she cannot make the requisite Watson showing without revealing trial strategy. [¶12] In this case, Dube made no such assertion in his motion in limine. In fact, the language used in the motion revealed his defense strategy. In his motion, Dube stated: 8 Defendant has disclosed to his attorney that the [victim] was hospitalized . . . for some reason pertaining to her mental health no less than four times prior to the allegations that gave rise to these charges, giving rise to a concern that information related to these hospitalizations may contain exculpatory evidence . . . . Defendant’s defense is grounded, in part, on the [victim’s] fear of being institutionalized by her parents had the actual events of the night in question been relayed to them . . . . The State was, therefore, already aware that Dube’s defense would rest in part on the victim’s motive to lie. In these circumstances, the court’s decision to allow the State to be present during the motions hearing did not result in a premature disclosure of Dube’s trial strategy.