Court Opinion

ID: 9659053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:30:35.396913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:03.432197
License: Public Domain

Rawlings, J.
(concurring specially) — Admittedly a strict constitutional question is not presented in considering the pretrial discovery rights of a defendant. Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343, 79 S. Ct. 1217, 3 L. Ed.2d 1287, and Cicenia v. LaGay, 357 U. S. 504, 78 S. Ct. 1297, 2 L. Ed.2d 1523.
However courts should, in cases of this nature, strive for practices which will more effectively promote the quest for truth. Nonrevealment by the State should be the exception, not the rule. See section 781.10, Code, 1962; People v. Stokes, 24 Misc.2d 755, 204 N. Y. S.2d 827; Layman v. State, Okla. Cr., 355 P.2d 444; and State v. Murphy, 36 N. J. 172, 175 A.2d 622. See also 12 Stan. L. Rev. 293; 69 Yale L. J. 1149; 42 Neb. L. Rev. 127; 49 Cab L. Rev. 56; 17 Vand. H Rev. 293; 74 Harv. L. Rev. 940; and rule 7(f), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Also annotations 7 A. L. R.3d 8 and 181.
*605There is to me no apparent applicable law which precludes an accused from having the benefit of a pretrial inspection of work sheets, laboratory report and results of any chemical test of the blood, urine or breath given by or taken from him. I respectfully submit the trial court in this case might well have accorded defendant that privilege. State ex rel. Helm v. Superior Court of Cochise County, 90 Ariz. 133, 367 P.2d 6. And, under appropriate conditions and restrictions, an accused might also be entitled to the benefit of an independent fluid analysis, if available.
On the other hand the grant or denial of pretrial discovery in criminal cases has generally been held to rest in the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent a showing of abuse of discretion or prejudice to the accused by an adverse ruling, it is not fOr appellate courts to interfere. Cicenia v. LaGay, supra, and annotations, 7 A. L. R.3d 36.
Since the unorthodox record presented on this appeal fails to disclose abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court or prejudice to defendant in the denial of his pretrial inspection or discovery request, I respectfully concur in the result.
Becker, J., joins in this special concurrence.