In re Whittle
339 Ga. App. 83
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Carneluis White pleaded guilty in 2013 to two felony theft offenses and was placed on concurrent ten-year probations.
- In 2015 the State filed a petition to revoke White’s probation based on new theft-by-conversion charges arising from a March 20, 2015 incident.
- White served a subpoena duces tecum on Sheriff Clay Whittle seeking the sheriff’s department investigative file (incident reports, witness statements, investigation notes, arrest reports, and any written agreements) related to that investigation for use at the revocation hearing.
- Whittle refused production citing Open Records Act exceptions and moved to quash; White moved to enforce the subpoena; the trial court heard argument and testimony and denied the motion to quash (with a minor modification deleting vague “etc.” language).
- Whittle appealed, arguing the subpoena: (1) improperly gives probationers greater discovery than indicted persons and allows circumvention of reciprocal discovery statutes; (2) compels production without a relevancy/materiality showing or proof the materials are unobtainable elsewhere; and (3) was waived when White had the chance to inspect records at the hearing.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion, found the statutes permit subpoenas in civil and criminal proceedings consistent with the Evidence Code, and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (White) | Defendant's Argument (Whittle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subpoena duces tecum for a law-enforcement investigative file may be enforced in a probation-revocation proceeding | White: subpoena power under OCGA § 24-13-23 permits obtaining relevant investigative materials for the revocation hearing | Whittle: such access improperly affords probationers greater discovery than indicted persons and circumvents criminal reciprocal-discovery statutes | Held: Court affirmed—statutory subpoena power applies; policy objections must be raised to legislature, not used to override plain statutory text |
| Whether the subpoena should be quashed as unreasonable or oppressive | White: records are directly relevant to intent and contractual issues supporting his defense at revocation | Whittle: production of whole investigative file is burdensome and unnecessary; Open Records Act may bar disclosure | Held: Court found subpoena limited to the specific investigation, produced minimal burden, and not unreasonable or oppressive |
| Whether White met the initial burden to show relevance and materiality of requested documents | White: identified relevance to theft-by-conversion elements (words, conduct, contracts) | Whittle: argued relevance not shown and materials could be obtained via criminal discovery | Held: Trial court found White met the initial relevancy burden; appellate court declined to review new relevance arguments raised for first time on appeal |
| Whether White waived the subpoena right by being offered examination of the file during cross-examination at the hearing | White: (no waiver argument) | Whittle: White waived by foregoing offered examination at the hearing | Held: Waiver argument abandoned on appeal for lack of authority and developed briefing; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 269 Ga. 222 (trial court has discretion to quash an unreasonable and oppressive subpoena)
- Bazemore v. State, 244 Ga. App. 460 (abuse-of-discretion standard for subpoena-quash motions)
- Townsend v. State, 236 Ga. App. 530 (same)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (probation-revocation proceedings are not stages of a criminal prosecution but require due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady disclosure obligations and limits; revocation hearings not equivalent to criminal trials for Brady relief)
- Brown v. State, 294 Ga. App. 1 (probation-revocation proceedings distinct from criminal prosecutions; defendant bears initial burden to show subpoena relevance)