Court Opinion

ID: 9767875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:31:32.48188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:34.159902
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I concur. The majority’s conclusion that the appellant’s discovery motion was too broad is, under the circumstances of this case, an error.
If we assume that appellant was, in fact, unaware of the existence of the cigarette papers, how can we, in reason, require that he must designate with specificity each item that he desires to examine? Counsel would, of necessity, need to be clairvoyant in the drafting of motions for discovery. Further, how could appellant be more specific in this instance? Cigarette papers are “any papers”, they are an “object” and evidently they are “real evidence” since they were admitted as such.
Under the present ruling, one is limited to discovery of only those items of which he is aware. This is not discovery, but only a limited right of examination. To my mind at least, the term “discovery” implies more than the mere privilege of physically examining those items, the details of which are already known. It must extend to all items material to the case, whether or not they are known to exist by the accused.
While I do not deny that a certain amount of specificity in defining those items sought to be discovered is required, yet I cannot understand how this appellant’s motion could have been any more specific than it was. To say that one must know about an item in order to discover and examine it begs the question. If the appellant would have been entitled to examine these cigarette papers had he known of their existence, then we can safely assume this to be a valuable right. Is it fair to deny him the exercise of that right because he did not know about the papers in advance and could not specifically request that they be made available? I think not. The majority has set a standard well-nigh impossible for many accused persons to meet. I disassociate myself from the disposition of appellant’s first and second grounds of error.
ODOM, J., joins in this opinion.