369 S.W.3d 702
Tex. App.2012Background
- Relator seeks mandamus to stop trial court from enforcing order to produce NCIC information about law enforcement witnesses for in-camera inspection.
- Defendant is presiding judge of Dallas County Criminal Court No. 2; trial court ordered NCIC history production for in-camera inspection.
- State disclosed witnesses had no arrest records but officer faced two internal affairs investigations and a pending civil suit.
- Relator argues the order exceeds discovery authority under article 39.14 and Brady; no showing of good cause.
- Record shows the State did not advise the court that no such record existed, and the court ordered production before determining existence.
- Court ultimately concluded the trial court exceeded authority under article 39.14 and granted mandamus conditionally, subject to vacating the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court exceeded its authority ordering NCIC materials. | Relator contends court ordered creation of records; beyond authority. | Defendant argues discovery rights and Brady duties justify court order. | Yes, court exceeded authority under article 39.14. |
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel/prohibit pretrial discovery actions. | Relator lacks adequate legal remedy and seeks to restrain discretionary ruling. | State argues discretionary rulings allowed due to Brady/39.14. | Mandamus appropriate where ministerial duty with clear right to relief is shown. |
| Whether the State had a duty to obtain Brady materials from NCIC/TCIC. | State should be compelled to produce Brady materials. | State not required to obtain materials that do not exist or aren’t in possession. | Relator cannot compel creation of materials; duty arises only when information is in possession. |
| Whether the court improperly ordered the State to create non-existent records. | Affidavits claimed no such record existed. | Record did not show court was asked to create a document; mischaracterization. | Court did not err in prohibiting creation of new documents; exceeded authority. |
| Whether Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. | Appeal from final judgment is inadequate to prevent improper discovery. | Appeal may not cure pretrial discovery missteps. | Relator has no adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus granted conditionally. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simon v. Levarlo, 306 S.W.3d 318 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (mandamus requires clear right and lack of adequate remedy at law)
- State of Tex. ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (mandamus when discretionary decision without adequate remedy)
- Perry v. Del Rio, 66 S.W.3d 239 (Tex.2001) (review limited to record at time of ruling)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materials obligation when information in State’s possession)
- Harm v. State, 183 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (Brady obligation attaches when information comes into State’s possession)
- In re Dist. Attorney’s Office of the 25th Judicial Dist., 358 S.W.3d 244 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (article 39.14 can require copying of documents in State’s file)
- Wade v. Stephens, 724 S.W.2d 141 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (Art.39.14 discovery standards and possession)