Court Opinion

ID: 9615209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:32:42.476051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:43.235827
License: Public Domain

ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Petitioner was charged by Information filed in the District Court of Mayes County, Oklahoma, June 28, 1990, with the crime of first degree murder, Case No. CRF-90-125. Petitioner’s discovery motion requesting certain OSBI reports was overruled by the District Court May 31, 1991. Petitioner is now asking this Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to order the District Attorney’s office of Mayes County to produce the OSBI reports or to show cause why it should not do so.
Brady v. State of Maryland, 873 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), holds that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. Therefore, we find the District Court should not have summarily overruled Petitioner’s discovery request for the OSBI reports, but that the District Court must determine from a review of the reports whether the reports are relevant and discoverable in a criminal proceeding. The prosecutor shall provide the OSBI reports to the District Judge for review setting forth the parts of the reports believed to be discoverable and those nondiscovera-ble to provide guidance for the Trial Court in its review. The prosecutor should pro*503vide justification with authority for those parts of the reports alleged to be nondis-coverable. Exculpatory evidence is always available to a defendant and statutory provisions cannot deny access.
The Legislature has directed in 74 O.S. Supp.1989, § 150.5, that all OSBI records shall be confidential and not open to the public. However, once the OSBI’s investigation is complete, the information has been given to the appropriate prosecutorial officer, and the State has elected to file criminal charges, then the material collected during the investigation is subject to disclosure under the defendant’s right to discovery. This right of discovery is allowed in 74 O.S.Supp.1989, § 150.7d, and the procedure we have prescribed recognizes the authority of the trial court to grant discovery of all relevant material in a proceeding, including prosecution of a criminal case.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the District Court grant Petitioner’s discovery request, subject to review by the District Court, and release the relevant and appropriate information required for Petitioner to prepare for trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE, Presiding Judge Specially concurring
/s/Gary L. Lumpkin GARY L. LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge
/s/Tom Brett TOM BRETT, Judge
/s/Ed Parks ED PARKS, Judge
/s/Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Judge