Court Opinion

ID: 9534753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:42:38.114768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:45.812159
License: Public Domain

LANE, Vice-Presiding Judge,
concurs in part/dissents in part:
I concur with the majority’s statement that the current state of our procedural law does not permit discovery prior to the preliminary examination. However, I feel compelled to dissent to the rest of the Order.
I would first point out that the question of what is discoverable is not properly before us. In the instant matter, the trial judge, acting as magistrate, ruled that she could not require the State to make certain disclosures prior to a bind over order. That and only that order is before us. Questions of what is discoverable are not raised.
In the first part of the Order, the majority relies on historic procedure in determining that pre-arraignment discovery is not authorized and then ignores historical precedence on discovery issues and in effect creates a criminal discovery code. In *1170this “code”, the majority sets forth items discoverable by the defendant that have in the most part already been approved by this Court. However, for the first time in Oklahoma judicial history, it requires the defendant to disclose many items that heretofore have not been discoverable by the State and designates sanctions to be imposed if either party fails to follow the rules set out. I believe that this is a matter to be addressed by the legislative branch of our government, not the judiciary.
Contrary to the above expressions, I applaud the majority in their philosophy. It is my personal view that more discovery in criminal cases is desirable. I believe that mandating more discovery and permitting discovery even before preliminary examination will cause more cases to be settled and thus, promote judicial economy. However, I do not believe that we have the authority to make the changes necessary to reach the desired goal. I would commend the legislature to address these problems.