in Re William Lee Hon, 09-16-00301-CR

Relator William Lee Hon, Polk County DA, seeks mandamus to vacate a trial-court discovery order in a DWI prosecution (State v. Cindy Pashia‑McCormick) requiring the DPS Houston Crime Lab to produce extensive digital records and permit inspection.
The trial court adopted a standing blood-discovery order (modeled on a Harris County form) and ordered broad categories of materials (e.g., accreditation records, internal audits, proficiency testing results, testimonial evaluation forms, and laboratory inspection access).
Hon argues the order exceeds the limited discovery authority in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14 because much of the ordered material is not shown to be material to the defendant’s case.
Defense presented expert testimony (Troy McKinney) explaining why many items (SOPs, audits, sample-specific records) are material to testing reliability; but some categories (e.g., proficiency testing without time limits, testimonial evaluations, and a post‑hoc inspection two years after testing) were not tied to the specific case.
The court stayed the discovery order, reviewed the record, and evaluated whether portions of the order exceeded article 39.14’s materiality bounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is appropriate	Hon: mandamus proper because discovery orders are not appealable and relief at law is inadequate	Pashia‑McCormick: discovery order within court’s discretion under art. 39.14	Mandamus appropriate in part; trial court must vacate and reissue order consistent with opinion
Whether ordered accreditation/internal audit and sample records are material	Hon: must be material to the defendant’s case; otherwise outside art. 39.14	Defense: SOPs, audits, and sample records are necessary to evaluate test reliability and are material	Court: these records may be material and properly ordered (affirmed)
Whether proficiency testing results (unlimited time) are material	Hon: overly broad; not shown material for the specific testing time	Defense: proficiency tests show analyst accuracy and could be relevant	Court: scope not limited to relevant time frame; defendant failed to show materiality for broad range — order exceeded art. 39.14
Whether testimonial evaluation forms and post‑hoc lab inspection are material	Hon: not shown material to this case; inspection years after testing may be irrelevant	Defense: evaluations demonstrate accreditation maintenance; inspection could reveal procedures/equipment issues	Court: testimonial evaluations and the late inspection were not shown material and thus exceeded court’s authority under art. 39.14

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. Crim. App.) (mandamus appropriate when no adequate appellate remedy and act is ministerial)
In re Allen, 462 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. Crim. App.) (ministerial act defined as one not involving judicial discretion)
Ehrke v. State, 459 S.W.3d 606 (Tex. Crim. App.) (evidence is material if it affects essential proof of the charged offense)
Quinones v. State, 592 S.W.2d 933 (Tex. Crim. App.) (materiality standard for discovery)
In re Thompson, 330 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. App.—Austin) (trial courts must apply correct law in criminal discovery; failure is abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Wade v. Stephens, 724 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. App.—Dallas) (conditionally granting mandamus where discovery exceeded article 39.14)