Court Opinion

ID: 9546752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:34:58.830405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:49.805323
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent.
If a change in the criminal rules is needed, this court should exercise its inherent power and promulgate new rules in a regular manner. Instead, the majority shirks this responsibility and opens a critically important phase of criminal proceedings to the unguided exercise of discretion by trial courts. With all due respect to our trial judges, the inevitable result will be injustice. The conduct of criminal discovery will be irregular, unpredictable and therefore inherently unfair.
*803No one should mistake the fact that the majority is changing the rules of criminal discovery, and that the change is a significant and unprecedented expansion of the State's discovery powers in criminal cases. The majority recognizes an inherent power in trial courts to order the defendant to produce evidence for examination by the State. Like all such expansions of state power, this rule is supported by a simplistic argument with superficial appeal: the notion that the State and the defendant ought to have equal and symmetrical discovery powers. On closer examination, however, the magnitude of the change and its unfairness are clear.
There Is No Authority for This Discovery Order Under the Criminal Rules
Prior to 1973, Washington by statute granted the prosecution and the defense limited pretrial discovery. Both were required to exchange lists of witnesses which they intended to call at trial. Former RCW 10.37.030, repealed by Laws of 1984, ch. 76, § 26, p. 462 (superseded by CrR 4.7). In addition, a defendant was required to give advance notice of intent to raise an alibi defense, stating the names and addresses of any alibi witnesses. Former RCW 10.37-.033, repealed by Laws of 1984, ch. 76, § 26, p. 462 (superseded by CrR 4.7). As to facts, documents or other items that were not discoverable by statute, the grant or denial of a pretrial discovery motion was left to the discretion of the trial judge, subject to review for manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Gilman, 63 Wn.2d 7, 8-9, 385 P.2d 369 (1963); State v. Thompson, 54 Wn.2d 100, 103, 338 P.2d 319 (1959); see Comment, Five Years Under State v. Thompson: Criminal Pretrial Discovery in Washington, 39 Wash. L. Rev. 853 (1964).
In 1973, the Supreme Court adopted the Superior Court Criminal Rules. 82 Wn.2d 1114 (1973). These rules were promulgated and adopted pursuant to the court's inherent power to govern court procedure. Const. art. 4, § 1; State v. Fields, 85 Wn.2d 126, 129, 530 P.2d 284 (1975); see RCW *8042.04.190. The criminal rules, like all court rules, are subject to the same rules of construction as statutes. State v. McIntyre, 92 Wn.2d 620, 622, 600 P.2d 1009 (1979); State v. Berry, 31 Wn. App. 408, 411, 641 P.2d 1213 (1982). The court will not read into a statute matters which are not there nor modify a statute by construction. King Cy. v. Seattle, 70 Wn.2d 988, 991, 425 P.2d 887 (1967).
The superficial appeal of the majority's argument rests on the facile assumption that the discovery powers of the State and the defendant are symmetrical. Under the criminal rules as they now exist, that is clearly not the case. A criminal defendant has a limited obligation to provide discovery. Generally, a defendant must provide the prosecution discovery in four areas: the names and addresses of witnesses the defense intends to call, together with any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements, CrR 4.7(b)(1); nontestimonial identification evidence, CrR 4.7(b) (2) (i)-(viii); the nature of any defense, including a list of alibi witnesses, CrR 4.7(b) (2) (ix), (xi)-(xiv); and reports or testimony of experts which the defendant intends to use at trial, CrR 4.7(g).
In contrast to a defendant's limited obligations, the State has a broad obligation to provide discovery. CrR 4.7(a)(1)-(2) sets out a comprehensive list of tangible and documentary evidence, and reports of examinations and tests which the prosecution must disclose to the defendant. Included in this list are the names and addresses of witnesses the State intends to call at trial, together with any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements of such witnesses. CrR 4.7(a)(l)(i). The duty to disclose covers any material or information which tends to negate the defendant's guilt. CrR 4.7(a)(3). CrR 4.7(c) permits the defense to request additional disclosures from the State and CrR 4.7(d) allows the defense to request the State or the court to obtain discoverable material from third parties.
None of these rules authorizes the discovery granted by the trial court here. The most likely possibility, CrR *8054.7(b)(1), sets forth the information and material that is subject to disclosure by the defense to the State. That subsection provides in part:
(b) Defendant's Obligations.
(1) Except as is otherwise provided as to matters not subject to disclosure and protective orders, the defendant shall disclose to the prosecuting attorney the following material and information within the defendant's control no later than the omnibus hearing: the names and addresses of persons whom the defendant intends to call as witnesses at the hearing or trial, together with any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements of such witness.
(Italics mine.)
Applying ordinary rules of statutory construction, it is clear that subsection (b)(1) provides for prosecutorial discovery of statements of witnesses the defense intends to call at trial. It does not require the defendant to disclose recordings, notes or summaries of defense interviews with witnesses whom the defense does not intend to call at trial. That being the case, the discovery order entered in this case plainly exceeds the scope of discovery authorized by CrR 4.7(b)(1).
The only other possible source of authority for the trial court's order would be CrR 4.7(e), which governs discovery in the discretion of the trial court. Section (e) provides in part:
(e) Discretionary Disclosures.
(1) Upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense, and if the request is reasonable, the court in its discretion may require disclosure to the defendant of the relevant material and information not covered by sections (a), (c) and (d).
(Italics mine.) This is a general "catchall'' provision allowing the trial court to order disclosure of items not specified in the rule upon a showing of materiality to the defense.
By its plain wording this provision provides that only the defendant is entitled to the discretionary disclosure of information not covered by the discovery rule. The rule *806contains no provision granting trial courts discretionary authority to expand on the list of items discoverable by the prosecution. If the rule permits a trial court discretion to order prosecutorial discovery with respect to matters outside the scope of CrR 4.7(b), as the State contends, the pertinent part of CrR 4.7(e) would read:
(1) Upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense [or the prosecution], and if the request is reasonable, the court in its discretion may require disclosure to the defendant [or the State] of the relevant material and information not covered by sections (a), (c) and (d) [or section (b), respectively].
As actually written, however, the rule grants only the defense the opportunity for discretionary discovery. CrR 4.7(e) does not authorize the discovery order entered in this case.
Since the trial court's order in this case clearly exceeds the criminal rules, it is an abuse of discretion.
A Trial Court Has No Inherent Power To Grant Discovery Beyond the Scope of the Criminal Rules
By upholding the trial court's order in this case, the majority authorizes trial courts everywhere to grant the State expanded powers not provided for in the criminal rules. Apparently, the majority believes that a trial court has some inherent power to grant the State this broad discovery. The majority cites no authority for that proposition, however, because there is none. In fact, the great weight of authority and logic is to the contrary.
The rule that a trial court has broad discretion to order discovery can be found only in cases that predate the adoption of the criminal discovery rules. See Gilman, at 8; Thompson, at 103. Post-rule cases have upheld the trial court's exercise of discretion only where CrR 4.7 grants the trial court discretion to order discovery. See, e.g., State v. Mak, 105 Wn.2d 692, 704-05, 718 P.2d 407, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995 (1986); State v. Espinosa, 47 Wn. App. 85, 89, 733 P.2d 1010 (1987); State v. Mines, 35 Wn. App. 932, 938, *807671 P.2d 273 (1983). This court has never extended criminal discovery by judicial discretion beyond that expressly authorized by CrR 4.7.
This accords with the view as stated in 2 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 19.4, at 511 (1984):
In the area of prosecution discovery, in contrast to defense discovery, trial courts generally are prohibited from exercising their inherent power to require disclosure beyond that specifically noted in the discovery provision. Prosecution discovery is viewed as so controversial that the failure of the statute or court rule to specifically authorize a particular type of disclosure is taken as indicating the rulemakers did not intend to allow the prosecution such discovery.
Accord, State v. Whitaker, 202 Conn. 259, 520 A.2d 1018, 1022-23 (1987); Richardson v. District Court, 632 P.2d 595, 600 (Colo. 1981); People v. Williams, 87 Ill. 2d 161, 429 N.E.2d 487 (1981); State v. Sandstrom, 225 Kan. 717, 595 P.2d 324, 331-32 (1979); Moore v. State, 105 Ariz. 510, 467 P.2d 904, 907-08 (1970); State v. Thompson, 134 A.2d 266, 268 (Del. Super. Ct. 1957); see generally Annot., Right of Prosecution to Discovery of Case-Related Notes, Statements, and Reports — State Cases, 23 A.L.R.4th 799, 809-13 (1983); but see Scott v. State, 519 P.2d 774, 776-77 (Alaska 1974).
The courts adopting the majority view conclude that a rule that allows a trial court discretion to expand or restrict the scope of discovery on a case-by-case basis is inconsistent with the purpose of the criminal discovery rules. In Richardson, the trial court ordered the defense to produce the statements of nonexpert witnesses the defense intended to call at trial. Unlike CrR 4.7, the Colorado criminal rules do not permit prosecutorial discovery of such statements. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed and stated:
The exclusion of non-expert witnesses' statements from prosecutorial discovery, far from being an oversight, reflects a purposeful decision to prevent the impairment of constitutional rights that arguably could result from a rule permitting the court to enlarge the categories of *808prosecutorial discovery on the basis of an ad hoc evaluation of each case. In keeping with this purpose, the trial court's authority to grant discovery likewise must be limited to the categories expressly set forth in the rule.
Richardson, at 599; accord, United States v. Peltz, 18 F.R.D. 394, 406-07 (S.D.N.Y. 1955).
Likewise, in Moore, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a trial court has no inherent power to grant the State broader discovery powers than those granted by that state's criminal rules.
"Rule 195 prescribes the circumstances and conditions which govern the inspection and copying of books, papers and documents in the hands of a prosecuting attorney. By holding that there is inherent power in the trial court to allow discovery of books, papers and documents under circumstances other than those included within Rule 195 the door is opened wide to each judge to adopt that practice which seems then most consistent with his own concept of what constitutes the due administration of justice. This completely nullifies the Rules of Criminal Procedure as a consistent system for practice. Such power has been repeatedly denied.
Moore, at 514 (quoting State ex rel. Polley v. Superior Court, 81 Ariz. 127, 134-35, 302 P.2d 263 (1956) (Struck-meyer, J., dissenting)).
The exercise of inherent power or discretion over prose-cutorial discovery would be inconsistent with the purpose of Washington's criminal rules. That purpose is to
provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding. [The rules] shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, effective justice, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.
CrR 1.2. Washington's criminal rules were carefully drafted by this court to balance the competing interest in the area of criminal discovery and are designed to ensure uniform enforcement of the rules. Judges and lawyers may well differ in their evaluation of the competing interests that are now reflected in the criminal rules. Allowing each trial *809judge discretion to adopt discovery practices on a case-by-case basis would nullify the criminal rules as a consistent, fair and effective system for practice.
The majority argues that the trial court's order is justified by need to eliminate trial by surprise. However, we have always recognized that that policy is served by our existing rule, CrR 4.7. State v. Coe, 101 Wn.2d 772, 783, 684 P.2d 668 (1984). Furthermore, upholding the trial court's discovery order will not advance this policy. The State can hardly make a claim of surprise and resulting prejudice where, as here, the witness statements were taken from the State's own witnesses.15 Prohibiting discovery will not hamper the State's preparation of its case. The State has adequate investigative resources and access to its own witnesses. If the State wants to know what the witnesses told the defense, it can ask them what they said. Finally, the State makes no claim that the witness statements are material to the preparation of its case. See CrR 4.7(e)(1). In the absence of such a claim, it would appear that the State desires the power to go on a general "fishing expedition" into the files of defense counsel.
If a New Rule is Needed This Court Should Issue One
If an expansion of the State's power of discovery is called for, the proper way for this court to recognize that power is to promulgate a rule to that effect. This is an area where we must proceed with caution. While I agree with the majority's conclusions regarding this defendant's constitutional claims, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are substantial constitutional questions involved in granting the State discovery against the defendant.
The recognition of certain discovery rights for the government in criminal cases has been a fairly recent development. See 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 251 (1969). The caution with which *810both courts and legislatures have embraced the concept rests in large part on a proper respect for the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination. Additional inhibition stems from concern over the impact of prosecutorial discovery on such related matters as the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel, the attorney-client privilege, and the so-called "work product" doctrine recognized in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947).
Middleton v. United States, 401 A.2d 109, 115-16 (D.C. 1979). The majority's argument in favor of symmetrical discovery in criminal cases is too simplistic. The fact is the defendant has rights the State does not. The majority, however, is not sensitive to the constitutional dimensions of this question.
Given the sensitivity of this question, the proper way to go about making a change would be to exercise our inherent rulemaking power. With all due respect to our State's trial judges, it is too much to expect that they would arrive at a consistent, uniform and fair set of results on the difficult constitutional questions which the issue of prosecutorial discovery raises. The Arizona Supreme Court recognized this in Moore.
"'It is well to remember that we are dealing with a subject that is peculiarly within the Supreme Court's rule-making and rule-changing power. Should the Supreme Court deem it appropriate to consider the question whether Rule 16 should be amended to permit fuller discovery, the Supreme Court has available the traditional method of affording an opportunity to Bench and Bar, including prosecutors and law school professors, to hammer out their differences on the anvil of debate ... In this particular area of the law, such a technique of reform is superior to the case-to-case decisional approach, with its concomitant uncertainty and conflicts, individualizing facts, and inarticu-lated basic assumptions of policy.'"
Moore, at 514 (quoting State ex rel. Polley v. Superior Court, 81 Ariz. 127, 136, 302 P.2d 263 (1956) (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting)).
*811By upholding the discovery order in this case, the majority chooses a case-by-case approach which will inevitably result in injustice.
Conclusion
The majority would do well to heed the words of the court in Middleton v. United States, 401 A.2d 109, 121 (D.C. 1979):
However appealing the notion of full disclosure may be in the abstract, important constitutional and societal interests affected by the criminal discovery process counsel against a casual acceptance of such a major revision of the established statutory schemes.
The change the majority makes in the balance of power between the State and the accused is profound, and it makes the change casually. If the change is needed, and I doubt it very much, the court should take the responsibility for promulgating a rule to that effect. Affirming the trial court's order in this case is the wrong way to go about making such a profound change in the law.
I would reverse.
Pearson, C.J., and Dolliver, J., concur with Dore, J.

 An issue, not presented here, would arise if the defense were to use the witness statements or call the investigator to impeach the State's witnesses at trial.