State of New Hampshire v. Shawn Carter
167 N.H. 161
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Defendant Shawn Carter was bound over to superior court on July–August 2013 after circuit-court probable cause findings on homicide complaints; he later was indicted on first- and second-degree murder counts.
- Before indictment, Carter moved in superior court for pre-indictment discovery under RSA 604:1-a, which grants an accused the same discovery rights after bound-over as exist post-indictment.
- The State opposed; the superior court ruled RSA 604:1-a unconstitutional under Part I, Article 37 (separation of powers), concluding it conflicted with Superior Court Rule 98 and usurped judicial rule-making.
- The superior court allowed an interlocutory appeal; by the time this Court considered the case the defendant had been indicted and received discovery.
- This interlocutory appeal asks whether RSA 604:1-a violates the separation of powers by intruding on the judiciary’s procedural rule-making authority and whether the statute conflicts with Rule 98.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RSA 604:1-a violates Part I, Art. 37 by usurping judicial power to make procedural rules | Statute conflicts with Superior Court Rule 98 and improperly intrudes on the judiciary’s exclusive power to set procedural rules | Legislature may enact procedural statutes; RSA 604:1-a does not usurp core judicial functions and can be harmonized with Rule 98 | RSA 604:1-a is not unconstitutional under Article 37; legislature shares authority over court procedure and statute does not impair core adjudicatory functions |
| Whether Rule 98 prohibits pre-indictment discovery | Rule 98’s timing provisions effectively reserve discovery until post-indictment, so a statute allowing pre-indictment discovery conflicts with the rule | Rule 98 does not expressly prohibit pre-indictment discovery and can be read as not addressing pre-indictment timing | Rule 98 can be construed as not addressing pre-indictment discovery; no express prohibition exists |
| Whether RSA 604:1-a mandates automatic pre-indictment discovery in all cases | The statute compels courts to grant pre-indictment discovery, removing judicial discretion | The statute grants only the same rights pre-indictment that exist post-indictment, preserving judicial discretion to limit or defer discovery for good cause | RSA 604:1-a grants only rights available post-indictment and preserves court discretion under Rule 98 and RSA 517:13 to regulate scope/timing |
| If conflict exists, whether statute or rule controls | Rule 98 reflects judiciary’s procedural authority and should prevail over conflicting statute | Legislative enactments on procedure control unless they compromise the core adjudicatory functions of courts | Where statute does not impair core judicial functions, the legislative policy controlling timing of discovery prevails over conflicting court rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Opinion of the Justices (Prior Sexual Assault Evidence), 141 N.H. 562 (1997) (discussed prior view that judiciary has exclusive power to make procedural and evidentiary rules)
- Petition of Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, 164 N.H. 319 (2012) (clarified limits of PSAE and recognized shared legislative/judicial authority over court procedure)
- State v. LaFrance, 124 N.H. 171 (1983) (distinguished as involving intrusion on court’s control of courtroom conduct)
- Deming v. Foster, 42 N.H. 165 (1860) (noting courts cannot disregard legislative enactments and legislative policy controls when properly exercised)