Court Opinion

ID: 9615211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:32:42.480017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:43.236589
License: Public Domain

LANE, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result:
I concur with the majority in its finding that the trial court should examine the reports of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and release discoverable information to Petitioner. Brady v. State of Maryland, cited by the majority, makes the ability of a defendant to discover certain items a constitutional requirement, and as such, it must take precedence over an Oklahoma statute. However, I base my conclusion on Brady and its progeny and not the statutes cited by the majority. In State v. District Court of Jackson County, 795 P.2d 525 (Okl.Cr.1990), we approved a procedure whereby the trial court can examine statutorily restricted material and authorize dissemination of discoverable information to a defendant.
However, I do not believe that the majority’s reliance on the provisions of Title 74 is appropriate. 74 O.S.Supp.1989, § 150.5 limits the agencies and persons to whom information contained in OSBI reports may be disseminated. It makes an unlawful disclosure a misdemeanor. Judges and defendants are not in the class of people allowed copies of the reports. 74 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 150.7d by its terms restricts the information that can be released after the proper hearing to only that relating to motor vehicle theft or insurance fraud that the law enforcement agency obtained from insurance companies under the provisions of Sections 150.7b to 150.7e. I do not believe that this is applicable to our current case.
It could be argued that the rules established in Allen v. District Court of Washington County, 803 P.2d 1164 (Okl.Cr. 1990), would require the State to turn over OSBI reports to the defendant. At page 1168 we provided:
3. The prosecuting attorney’s obligations under this- standard extended to material and information in the possession or control of members of the prosecutor’s staff and of any others who either regularly report or, with reference to the particular case, have reported to the prosecutor’s office.
However, the restrictions on OSBI reports were established by the legislature, and this court does not have the authority to modify statutes by rule. See Syllabus 2, In re Luckens, 372 P.2d 635, 636 (Okl.Cr. 1962).
For the above reasons, I concur with the result of the majority but disagree with the theory used.