Court Opinion

ID: 9791537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:13:23.143918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.790294
License: Public Domain

WOOD, Chief Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the result on all issues. This special concurrence concerns the “criminal discovery” issue and is written to emphasize the appellate issue when there is a claim that disclosure rules have been violated. When there is a failure to disclose as provided by the rules, § 41-23-30, N.M.S.A. (2d Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1973) states: “[T]he court may order such party to permit the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from calling a witness not disclosed, or introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or it may enter such other order as it deems appropriate under the circumstances.” The alternatives available are within the trial court’s discretion. The appellate issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See dissenting opinion in State v. Billington, 86 N.M. 44,' 519 P.2d 140 (Ct.App.1974). In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, it is proper to consider whether the party seeking disclosure has been prejudiced by the non-disclosure. Dissenting opinion, State v. Billington, supra. Three categories of items are involved in this case. One category involves tangible objects and reports. The court order required the State to produce and permit the inspection of these items. Defendant asked for the report of one medical witness. The State had no such report. The defense never sought the production of any of the other items in this category. Defendant knew of the existence of the tangible objects and of the contents of several of the reports well in advance of trial. The district attorney received no instruction “as to where to send any physical evidence.” Defendant had an obligation to advise the State as to where and when the items in this category were to be produced for inspection. See § 41-23-27, N.M.S.A.1953 Comp. (2d Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1973). He did not do so. Not having done so, the State did not violate the court order requiring the production and inspection of items in this category. A second category involves witnesses listed on the information and witnesses who testified at the preliminary examination. Defendant admits he knew of these witnesses. His complaint is that he was riot formally told of the district attorney’s intent to call the persons in this category as witnesses at the trial. The trial court correctly ruled there had been substantial compliance with the discovery rules as to the witnesses in this category. The third category is the only category involving nondisclosure under the rules. This third category involves three witnesses whose names were belatedly disclosed. As Judge Lopez points out, the testimony of two of the three (Dunn and Saltz) was technical and the testimony of the third (the FBI agent) was essentially cumulative. Judge Lopez points out that defendant was not prejudiced by the belated disclosure of these three witnesses. The defendant sought to exclude certain evidence or in the alternative, a continuance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying these requests because: (a) there was no violation of disclosure rules as to tangible objects and reports; (b) there was no violation of disclosure rules as to witnesses known to defendant; and (c) the belated disclosure of technical and cumulative witnesses was not prejudicial.