Court Opinion

ID: 9667663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:51:50.991714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.712121
License: Public Domain

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice, dissenting. I would make short shrift of this appeal by reversing and remanding it for retrial. Granted, a defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial, but he is entitled to a fair trial. See Hoback v. State, 286 Ark. 153, 689 S.W.2d 569 (1985). Lukach was arraigned and counsel was appointed by the trial court on July 8, 1991, and the cases against him were immediately set for trial on July 31, 1991. In an effort to fully represent his client, counsel filed appropriate motions for a bill of particulars, discovery, and inspection including, but not limited to, information or material within the prosecutor’s knowledge, possession, or control which would tend to negate the guilt of Lukach as to the offense charged. On July 21, 1991, Lukach’s counsel learned one of the complainants had accused another man of rape in 1988. Counsel informed the prosecutor of this information who, in turn, referred counsel to the Hot Spring County Sheriff’s Office for assistance in gaining information. Counsel met with little success and, as a result, filed a motion with the court to compel discovery about information concerning the prior rape. Two days prior to the trial, the court entered its “Order to Produce Records.”On the even of trial, the information was furnished to counsel. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 17.3 states as follows: (a) The prosecuting attorney shall use diligent, good faith efforts to obtain material in the possession of other governmental personnel which would be discoverable if in the possession or control of the prosecuting attorney, upon timely request and designation of material or information by defense counsel. (b) If the prosecuting attorney’s efforts are unsuccessful, the court shall issue suitable subpoenas or orders to cause such material to be made available to defense counsel where the material or other governmental personnel are subject to the jurisdiction of the court. It is obvious to me that the prosecuting attorney violated Rule 17.3 to the extent that it was necessary for the trial court to issue its order to compel on the eve of trial. The purpose of this rule and discovery is to provide a procedure whereby defense counsel can obtain sufficient information in order to properly investigate and prepare for trial and, in particular, to provide effective assistance and representation to his client at the trial itself. Whether or not there was a formal showing by Lukach of specific prejudice by the State’s failure to comply is of no moment. The ultimate question is, did counsel receive the requested information in sufficient time to effectively investigate and properly prepare for trial? The simple answer is “no” and, for this reason, prejudice is apparent. Eighty percent of a trial is preparation and the other twenty is presentation. The State’s indifference and lack of good faith in furnishing information to counsel, and the trial court’s failure to grant sufficient continuances to permit counsel to properly prepare his case, after receiving all information requested in his motion for discovery and to compel, has denied the defendant a fair trial. I respectfully dissent. Dudley and Newbern, JJ., join in the dissent.