Commonwealth v. Peters
2011 Ky. LEXIS 140
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Peters was charged with DUI first offense; defense asked for pretrial conference and the arresting officer's presence.
- Commonwealth objected to producing the arresting officer at the pretrial conference.
- District court ordered the Commonwealth to produce the witness for a pretrial interview, citing RCr 7.24 and RCr 8.03 to expeditize cases; allowed informal pretrial conferences in Shelby County.
- Commonwealth obtained a writ of prohibition from the Shelby Circuit Court; circuit court held the district court order was beyond the rules and caused irreparable harm.
- Court of Appeals reversed the writ; Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review to consider propriety of the writ and the district court’s authority.
- The Supreme Court reinstated the circuit court’s writ, holding the district court’s order effectively compelled witness attendance in a discovery-like proceeding, beyond the rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion ordering witness production | Peters argues district court acted within discretion to facilitate trial. | Commonwealth argues no authority to compel witness attendance for pretrial interview. | Writ proper; district court exceeded permissible scope |
| Adequacy of remedy by appeal | No adequate remedy by appeal once information is disclosed | Appeal could remedy later if error matched | No adequate remedy by appeal; writ appropriate |
| Special cases exception to writ | If error exists, correction necessary for orderly justice | Minor error unlikely to affect administration | Falls within 'special cases' exception; writ warranted |
| Witness interview rights and equal opportunity | Both sides have right to interview witnesses pretrial | Witness may refuse; district order to compel attendance was improper | District order compelling attendance was improper; right balance acknowledged |
| Discovery vs. attendance at pretrial conference | Attendance could aid settlement and plea negotiations | Order treated as discovery and exceeds RCr 7.24/8.03 | Attendance at pretrial conference cannot be compelled as discovery under these rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trade, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky.2004) (writs reviewed cautiously; harm and adequacy considerations)
- Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky.1961) (exceptional writ relief; necessity of correction of error)
- Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2004) (harm requirement for writ; two threshold conditions)
- Haight v. Williamson, 833 S.W.2d 821 (Ky.1992) (abuse of discretion standard for writs)
- Rehm v. Clayton, 132 S.W.3d 864 (Ky.2004) (de novo review on questions of law; clear error standard on factual findings)
- 3M Co. v. Engle, 328 S.W.3d 184 (Ky.2010) (discovery rulings; sentencing context for administrative efficiency)
- St. Luke Hosp., Inc. v. Kopowski, 160 S.W.3d 771 (Ky.2005) (order correction where miscarriage of justice would occur)
- Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 962 S.W.2d 880 (Ky.App.1997) (plea bargaining expedites docket; court not to second-guess wisdom)
- Radford v. Lovelace, 212 S.W.3d 72 (Ky.2006) (both sides have right to interview witnesses; witness can refuse)
- United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (right to interview witnesses predates Sixth Amendment; equal opportunity)
- Hillard v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 758 (Ky.2005) (subpoenas cannot compel pretrial interviews)
- United States v. Pinto, 755 F.2d 150 (10th Cir.1985) (prosecution cannot tell witnesses not to talk to defense)