Opinion ID: 2064797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure of the Prosecution to Provide Automatic Discovery

Text: Maine's new automatic discovery provision, Rule 16(a)(1)(A)(i), M.R. Crim.P., which became effective January 3, 1978, states in pertinent part: The attorney for the State shall furnish to the defendant within a reasonable time ... [a] statement describing any testimony or other evidence intended to be used against the defendant which... [w]as obtained as a result of a search and seizure.... [6] Rule 16(d), M.R.Crim.P., prescribes the sanctions that may be imposed for the State's failure to comply with the automatic discovery requirement: If the attorney for the State fails to comply with this rule, the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion may take appropriate action, which may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: requiring the attorney for the State to comply, granting the defendant additional time or a continuance, relieving the defendant from making a disclosure required by Rule 16A, prohibiting the attorney for the State from introducing specified evidence and dismissing charges with prejudice. (Emphasis added) The State seized marijuana from defendant and at trial offered the marijuana, photographs of the marijuana, and a sworn chemist's certificate in evidence. However, the prosecuting attorney had not furnished defendant with the statement required by Rule 16(a)(1)(A)(i), and at trial defendant objected to admission of the evidence. The presiding justice overruled the objection and imposed no sanction for the violation of the rule, finding that the indictment and the circumstances of the seizure effectively forewarned defendant that evidence relating to the marijuana would be introduced at trial. On appeal defendant asserts this ruling constitutes reversible error. We uphold the lower court's ruling. By the express terms of Rule 16(d), the presiding justice may take appropriate action to remedy a violation of Rule 16(a). The imposition of a sanction is not mandatory. The appropriate sanction may be nothing at all. In the instant case the presiding justice properly found that defendant was not prejudiced by the failure of the prosecutor to comply with the automatic discovery rule. Prison authorities seized the marijuana directly from defendant. Defendant was consequently put on notice of the likelihood that the marijuana or evidence establishing the content of the seized bag would be introduced at trial. Further, the indictment specifically charged that defendant did traffic in prison contraband by intentionally possessing contraband, to wit, 69 grams of marijuana. Given these special circumstances indicating that defendant was apprised of the likelihood that the marijuana or evidence of the marijuana would be introduced at trial, the presiding justice's decision not to impose a sanction for violation of the automatic discovery rule cannot be said to be an abuse of discretion. Although no sanction was imposed in this case for the State's noncompliance with Rule 16(a), we cannot emphasize too strongly the necessity for prosecutors to set up and maintain a system for routine and timely disclosure to defense counsel of the information listed in subdivision (a)(1). The adoption as of January 3, 1978, of new Criminal Rule 16, relating to discovery from the prosecution, and of its counterpart Rule 16A, relating to discovery from the defendant, was intended to enhance the quality of the pretrial preparation of both the prosecution and defense and to avoid surprises at trialall to the end of making the result of criminal trials depend upon the merits of the case rather than on the demerits of lawyer performance on one side or the other. It is true that automatic revelation to the defense of all the items listed in Rule 16(a)(1) may, as in the instant case, merely tell defense counsel something that he already knows or has reason to know. However, only by having an established system that operates automatically for such disclosure will the State effectuate the purpose of the new rule and be sure to avoid the imposition of sanctions that could cripple an otherwise meritorious prosecution.