Court Opinion

ID: 7790085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 21:31:37.581349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:21.535419
License: Public Domain

In its memorandum, the majority affirms Roger Calhoun's capital-murder conviction and sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Calhoun argued that the trial court erroneously excluded his expert witness, Gregory Hopkins, from testifying because, according to the trial court, Calhoun failed to provide the State with a copy of the document Hopkins had prepared and given to defense counsel. The trial court found, and the majority agrees, that the document was a "report" within the meaning of Rule 16.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., and was therefore discoverable by the State. The trial court informed Calhoun that he would not be able to call Hopkins as a witness unless he provided the document to the State. Calhoun refused to provide the document to the State, arguing that the document was not discoverable because it was an internal defense document, and Hopkins was not permitted to testify. I have examined the document and have attached it to this dissenting opinion. The document is clearly an internal defense memorandum intended for use only in the investigation and defense of the case. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 16.2(d), Ala. R.Crim. P., the document was not discoverable. The trial court erred in determining otherwise. The court also committed reversible error when it refused to allow the defense expert to testify because it had determined that the document prepared by the expert had to be provided to the State and defense counsel had refused to provide it. Because Calhoun's right to present expert testimony to support the theory of defense in his case was foreclosed by the trial court's errors, I must dissent.
Rule 16.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P., provides, in pertinent part, that upon written request of the State the defendant shall provide
 "results or reports of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests or experiments made in connection with the particular case, which are within the possession or control of the defendant and which the defendant intends to introduce in evidence at the trial or which were prepared by a witness whom the defendant intends to call at the trial, if the results or reports relate to the witness's testimony."
Rule 16.2(d), Ala. R.Crim. P., excludes some items from discovery. That rule provides, in pertinent part, "[e]xcept as to scientific or medical reports, this rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or otherinternal defense documents made by the defendant or thedefendant's attorneys or defendant's agents in connection withthe investigation or defense of the case. . . ." (Emphasis added.)
The majority contends that the document prepared by Hopkins was "a report detailing Hopkins' findings based on the evidence." While that is, to some extent, an accurate description of the document Hopkins provided, that does not support the trial court's determination or this Court's holding. The document included some of Hopkins interpretations of the evidence obtained at the scene. More importantly, however, the document included Hopkins theory of case — that one of the victims was shot accidentally and that the *Page 77 
other victim was shot in self-defense. The document includes reference to weaknesses in the defense, such as, "[t]his is where it looks bad for [the defendant]," and "[t]he problems [for the defense theory] are the two postmortem wounds and fleeing, which can be explained." It cannot possibly be considered appropriate to order disclosure of documents that include an analysis of the weaknesses of the defense's case. Rule 16 does not require this and to order the disclosure of such documents violates Rule 16.2(d) and the fundamental fairness and constitutional protections that are to be afforded to every defendant. Furthermore, Hopkins's memorandum includes a recommendation to defense counsel on how they should qualify him as an expert and present his testimony to the jury. This, too, indicates that the memorandum was not simply a report of findings based on Hopkins's examination of the evidence, but that it was in internal document regarding defense strategy. Finally, Hopkins conducted no physical or mental examinations or scientific tests or experiments; thus, his memorandum was not a "report" of any of those items.
Because the document prepared by Hopkins was an internal defense memorandum made by one of the "defendant's agents in connection with the investigation or defense of the case," Rule 16.2(d), Ala. R.Crim. P., the document was not discoverable. The trial court erred to reversal when it required that Calhoun provide Hopkins's document to the State and when it precluded Hopkins from testifying when Calhoun refused to do so. The trial court prevented Calhoun from presenting testimony essential to his defense. This fundamental error cannot be considered harmless.
 Based on the foregoing, I dissent. *Page 78
Exhibit *Page 79 
Exhibit *Page 80