Court Opinion

ID: 9744170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:55:17.041601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:47.178875
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
Defendant Williams filed his Demand for Discovery which contained the following language:
Comes now Defendant, by counsel, and pursuant to notice to the prosecutor, da-mand [sic] the following:
5. A copy of memoranda, statements, whether oral or written by the defendant and/or of all witnesses who are to be called in prosecution of this cause;
The trial court granted the request.
During the rebuttal stage of the trial, one of the arresting officers, Officer Wurz, was permitted to testify over proper objection that Williams, when arrested and after receiving his Miranda rights, stated he had purchased the drugs for Diana Wilson. This statement had not been furnished the defendant.
In State ex rel. Keller v. Criminal Court of Marion County, (1974) 262 Ind. 420, 317 N.E.2d 433, our Supreme Court explained the nature and purpose of discovery proceedings as follows:
“The object of a trial is the discovery of the truth. A trial judge has the responsibility to direct the trial in a manner which facilitates the ascertainment of that truth. The power to order discovery is ‘grounded in the inherent power of the trial court to guide and control the proceedings’. Johns v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 172, 240 N.E.2d 60, 64. . Nevertheless, criminal discovery is designed to improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system. The idea of a trial as a sport or game is not only a reflection on the judicial process, but it is wasteful of human intelligence and technique. . .”
262 Ind. at 423; 317 N.E.2d at 435.
“Persons working under these rules and informed as to their operations state publicly that full disclosure results in the eliminations of many trials since each side is well-informed as to its position and may look realistically at the probable results of a trial. 56 Judicature 279 (February, 1973). . .
262 Ind. at 425; 317 N.E.2d at 436.
In interpreting the meaning of the defendant’s discovery request, this Court should first examine the language in question to determine if its meaning is clear. Defendant requested “[a] copy of memoran-da, statements, whether oral or written by the defendant . . . To me, this language clearly requests the State to furnish Williams his “oral” statements. The request does not read, as suggested in the majority opinion, “[a] copy of memoranda of statements, whether oral or written by the defendant.” If, on the other hand, the language requires construction by this Court, which I believe unnecessary, we must do so in light of the principles enunciated in State ex rel. Keller, supra. Thus, to construe the questioned language as not requiring the State to furnish oral statements would deprive the defendant of full *129disclosure, impede “the efficiency of the criminal justice system” and relegate the discovery procedure to the status of “a sport or game.” Further, a confession or admission by the defendant is, practically speaking, the most damaging evidence against him. Revelation by the State of such confession or admission contributes substantially to the elimination of criminal trials and, thereby, enables our criminal courts to act more efficiently.
Our Supreme Court has recognized two remedies when the State violates the trial court’s order for discovery.
“Exclusion is the proper remedy when the State’s action is so misleading or demonstrates such bad faith that the only way to avoid a denial of fair trial to the defendant is to exclude the evidence. Absent such circumstances, a continuance is the most appropriate remedy. Reid v. State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 1149.”
O’Connor v. State, (1980) Ind., 399 N.E.2d 364, 366.
The majority states the officer’s testimony was offered to “rebut” evidence presented by the defendant. However, inculpatory statements by a defendant are properly a part of the State’s case in chief, not rebuttal. Wurz testified that Williams was afforded his Miranda rights and the voluntar-iness of the alleged statement was not challenged.1
The majority cites Reid v. State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 1149 as support for its conclusion “that at most the defendant was entitled to a continuance . . I believe the facts in Reid are distinguishable from those now before us. In that case, an alibi witness was impeached by testimony of a police officer after a proper foundation had been laid during her testimony. Her contradictory statement to the police had been improperly withheld by the prosecution. The Court determined a continuance would have afforded the defendant an opportunity to investigate and evaluate the officer’s credibility as well as the possibility of an error on his part. Additionally, and significantly, the Court stated no error was committed because the alibi witness had been cross-examined concerning her conversation with the officer and, therefore, his subsequent appearance as a rebuttal witness could not have surprised the defendant. Yet, the defendant made no objection to the officer’s testimony and cross-examined him at length. Thus, the defendant permitted evidence to go into the record and was not entitled to have it stricken when he found it unfavorable. Here, the testimony came as a complete surprise to defense counsel.
I note further that the informant used by the police to make the initial “buy” which enabled them to obtain a search warrant for Williams’ apartment was a drug user and was acting under some coercion by the police to assist them in making their drug cases or suffer prosecution himself. He had access to the apartment of Williams and his testimony to the effect that the drugs discovered in the apartment were his and not the defendant’s seriously jeopardized the State’s case.
After viewing all the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the “rebuttal” evidence,2 it is my opinion the trial court should have excluded the officer’s testimony. It is apparent from the record that the deputy prosecutor was aware of the existence of Williams’ statement throughout the case. Indeed, during closing argument, he stated:
Now the State can try their case any way they want to, with the type of defense *130that has been erected here, it’s significant that one thin piece of evidence be paramount and that it be brought out last, because I wanted you to check the contradictions in the defense.
Since the prosecutor could have introduced the officer’s statement in his case in chief and to do so would in no way have materially affected the totality of the evidence against the defendant, I can only conclude the evidence was withheld to mislead the defendant and disrupt the presentation of his case. Defense counsel’s inability to address this damaging evidence in opening statement and to conduct his defense during the trial in anticipation of its later admission, in my opinion, substantially prejudiced Williams’ defense. In Johns v. State, supra, our Supreme Court held that it is fundamentally a denial of due process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to lead a defendant to believe he has been afforded the right of discovery and then permit the State, in violation of a discovery order, to present surprise witnesses whose testimony substantially adds to the weight of the State’s case. Here, the State was conducting the trial as more of a game rather than an orderly hearing. It sought not to rely solely on the evidence against the defendant but to gain advantage by the impact of surprise.
Finally, appellate courts should view with alarm the practice by investigators and prosecutors who, by not reducing recollections of the defendant’s statement to writing, seek the advantage of surprise at trial and thereby frustrate the very purpose of criminal discovery. United States v. Lewis, (D.C.Cir. 1975) 511 F.2d 798, 802. See also ABA Standards, Discovery and Procedure Before Trial § 2.1(a)(ii) (Approved Draft, 1970).
This writer is aware of the requirement of competent police agencies that investigators promptly submit written reports of their investigations including, of course, reports of such significant evidence as confessions. It is inconceivable that a police investigative agency could properly function if its investigators kept evidence of their numerous cases “in their heads” subject to recall a year or more later at trial. It is also regrettable when, as here, a criminal trial occurs fourteen months after the arrest, the prosecution’s case appears to be weak and the officer “recalls” a confession which, in fact, rehabilitates the prosecution’s case. See my concurring opinion in Fox v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 384 N.E.2d 1159, beginning at page 1171 where two of the most damaging pieces of evidence against the defendants, including an admission allegedly made by one at the time of arrest, “surfaced” at the trial for the first time more than a year after the arrests.
In my opinion Williams’ alleged oral statement was within the scope of the discovery order and, under the facts of this case, the trial judge erred by permitting, in violation of his own order, the State’s introduction of Williams’ alleged statement as rebuttal evidence.

. A statement held inadmissible as substantive evidence because of a violation of Miranda may nevertheless be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility if the statement is otherwise found to be trustworthy. Harris v. New York, (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1. Since Williams did not testify, his statement obviously could not be used for impeachment purposes.

. A prosecutor, by withholding significant evidence from his case in chief, does, in fact, jeopardize the prosecution. The trial court, in its discretion, could exclude such evidence as not proper rebuttal. Hollowell v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 467, 269 N.E.2d 755, 758; Griffith v. State, (1959) 239 Ind. 321, 157 N.E.2d 191, 192. In addition, withholding such evidence from the case in chief would indeed be a poor tactic if the defendant rested without presenting evi*130dence and the court, again exercising its sound discretionary power, declined to permit the prosecution to reopen its case. See, Bullock v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 179.