Court Opinion

ID: 9523263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:37:56.534961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:47.741109
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Garrard, J.
— While I concur with Judge Staton’s treatment of issues II through V and with the result reached, I disagree with the implications of his treatment of the discovery issue. I do agree with the conclusion that the court committed no error.
Gutowski had addressed interrogatories to the alleged victim of the offense.
As stated by Judge Staton, IC 1971, 35-1-31-8 and Indiana Rules of Procedure, Criminal Rule 21 afford to a defendant in a criminal case, within certain limitations, the opportunities for pretrial discovery afforded by the civil rules.
Gutowski’s contention on appeal is that he is thus entitled to serve and have answered interrogatories addressed to a witness.
*627I would hold, simply, that he is not. The statute does not include interrogatories. TR. 33, which provides for the use of interrogatories in civil cases, limits their applicability to parties. There are two principal reasons for doing so.
First, of course, is that under the applicable technique for serving interrogatories, the court acquires no jurisdiction, of the witness permitting enforcement vis-a-vis the witness.
The second reason is more esoteric. While use of interrogar tories may normally be the most inexpensive discovery technique, they are usually of questionable value in adducing the depth of shading necessary to the resolution of disputed factual issues. As stated by Dean Harvey, “. . . interrogatories . . . constitute a cumbersome device not suitable for complicated factual situations or where parties may prove evasive.” 2 Harvey: Indiana Practice 682. See, also, Pike & Willis, “The New Maryland Deposition & Discovery Procedure,” 6 Md. L. Rev. 4. These problems are emphasized by the Civil Code Study Commission’s comment to Rule 33, which adopts the United States Court Advisory Commission’s recognition that interrogatories spawn a greater percentage of objections and motions than any other discovery device. See, 2 Harvey, Indiana Practice 678.
Thus, while interrogatories are an inexpensive means with which to narrow and clarify issues and discover basic facts, the extension of their use to non-parties appears uncalled for.
Gutowski asserts in the alternative that he was requesting a deposition by interrogatories. I agree that he might have done SO'. However, the record clearly discloses this was not the case. Such depositions are governed by TR. 31. The rule contemplates that the written questions will be submitted to •the parties with notice of the name and address of the officer before whom the questions are to be answered. After the opportunity for cross questions, etc., the witness appears before the officer and is sworn and asked the questions. The responses are taken down and certified as with other depositions. Gutow-*628ski clearly did not contemplate any such procedure. Instead he merely addressed interrogatories to the witness.
Accordingly, the court correctly denied the request.
Hoffman, J., concurs.