Harris v. State
22 A.3d 886
| Md. | 2011Background
- Harris is charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy related to a 2006 correctional officer’s death in Maryland.
- Pretrial disputes focus on discovery orders for records and testimony from Harris’s competency evaluation and Perkins Hospital treatment.
- Trial court ordered DHMH/Perkins Hospital to conduct a competency evaluation and to produce records; defense sought protective orders and access to the full files.
- State subpoenaed Harris’s treating physician (Dr. Patel) and Perkins Hospital to testify and produce treatment records; defense challenged privilege.
- Court of Special Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory and non-collateral; this Court granted certiorari to address appellate entitlement for the orders.
- The Court holds the challenged discovery orders are not appealable at this stage and analyzes collateral and Perlman doctrines to determine jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the orders are appealable under the collateral order doctrine | Harris seeks immediate review of privilege/disclosure orders | State argues discovery orders are not collateral final judgments | Collateral order doctrine does not apply |
| Whether Perlman doctrine should apply to permit immediate review | Perlman should allow immediate appeal to protect privileged material | Mohawk and Maryland law limit Perlman applicability; not appropriate here | Perlman doctrine not adopted; not applicable here |
| Whether final judgment rule forecloses review of discovery orders | Discovery orders affect competency and privilege; merits intertwined | Final judgment rule generally bars interlocutory discovery appeals | Final judgment rule applicable; discovery orders not final judgments under Maryland law |
| Whether the fourth requirement of collateral order doctrine is met (unreviewability on final judgment) | Disclosures would irreparably harm privilege and be unreviewable later | Appeal remains possible after final judgment; not unreviewable here | Fourth prong not satisfied; not immediately appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (collateral order doctrine as a basis for appealable final disposition)
- Sigma Reproductive Health Ctr. v. State, 297 Md. 660 (1983) (discovery orders generally not collateral; privileges and finality stringent)
- St. Mary’s County v. Lacer, 393 Md. 415 (2006) (collateral order doctrine limits; finality and exceptional circumstances)
- St. Joseph Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Assocs., P.A., 392 Md. 75 (2006) (discovery orders; collateral order doctrine applicability)