Calisto Mariko Wells v. State of Arizona, 297 P.3d 931

Wells charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer with a dangerous instrument.
Wells independently arranged interviews with police-officer witnesses through the Tucson Police Department, without prior notice to the prosecutor.
The state learned of the interviews after Wells attempted to interview the victim officer.
The state moved to require disclosure of recordings or transcripts to assess possible additional or different information than police reports.
Wells argued, relying on Osborne v. Superior Court, that disclosure was not required when statements are used only for impeachment.
The court granted the state's motion, but this court later holds that such disclosures may be ordered under Rule 15.2(g) in appropriate cases and vacates the order here because the record lacks a showing of substantial need and undue hardship.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Pretrial disclosure of impeachment evidence under Rule 15.2(g)?	Wells; relies on Osborne to oppose disclosure.	State; Rule 15.2(g) authorizes disclosure with substantial need.	Yes, may be ordered in appropriate cases; Osborne overruled for this context; here no record of substantial need.
Effect of defendant arranging interviews with police on State notice?	Wells argues notice occurred via police arrangements.	State contends police interviews can be conducted without notifying the prosecutor.	Prosecutor control required; independent interviews without notice are relevant to hardship but not dispositive here.
Disposition of disclosure order given lack of record?	Wells seeks relief from order.	State would show substantial need if given opportunity.	Order vacated; responder may order disclosure upon a proper showing of substantial need and undue hardship.

Osborne v. Superior Court, 157 Ariz. 2, 754 P.2d 331 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1988) (impeachment evidence and Rule 15.2 considerations; not blanket disclosure of all statements)
Carpenter v. Superior Court, 176 Ariz. 486, 862 P.2d 246 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1993) (limits on subpoenas to circumvent state discovery; relevance to state's discovery rights)
State v. Strickland, 27 Ariz. App. 695, 558 P.2d 723 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1976) (context of trial scheduling; distinguished here)
Zimmerman v. Superior Court, 98 Ariz. 85, 402 P.2d 212 (Arizona Supreme Court 1965) (civil disclosure principles applying to impeachment and substantive evidence)
State v. Rienhardt, 190 Ariz. 579, 951 P.2d 454 (Arizona Supreme Court 1997) (principles of discovery and avoiding delay or surprise)
Bryan v. Riddel, 178 Ariz. 472, 875 P.2d 136 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1994) (role of disclosure rules in shifting away from ambush tactics)
Carlton v. Emhardt, 138 Ariz. 353, 674 P.2d 907 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1983) (courts discourage ambush tactics; promotes open exchange of information)