Court Opinion

ID: 9669975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:11:49.934281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.442062
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result and in all of the court’s opinion except division I, from which I dissent.
I believe that in line with the modern trend, the whole subject of pretrial discovery in criminal cases should be thoroughly studied in Iowa, and such changes should then be installed by statute or rule as appear advisable.
The decisional method is not well suited for use in embarking upon a new criminal discovery system. Criminal discovery is considerably different from civil discovery; different problems are involved. Nakell, Criminal Discovery for the Defense and the Prosecution — The Developing Constitutional Considerations, SO N.C. L.Rev. 437. I would therefore stand by our present decisions on criminal discovery pending action by the next General Assembly on its proposed revision of Iowa criminal procedure. At the same time, I would suggest to the Assembly the advisability of a new statute authorizing this court to propose rules of criminal procedure as we can now propose rules of civil procedure. Code 1973, § 684.18. With such a statute, we could appoint an advisory committee of members of the bar who are especially knowledgeable in criminal law, to help us bring and keep our system of criminal procedure up to date — including discovery. This seems to me a wiser approach than the ad hoc decisional method, especially with respect to criminal discovery when we do not have a set of standing rules which were designed for criminal cases.
MOORE, C. J., and REES, J., join this special concurrence.