167 N.H. 698
N.H.2015Background
- Defendant Steven Laux was arrested for driving while certified as a habitual offender (a felony) and a probable cause (preliminary) hearing was scheduled.
- The circuit court had a standing discovery order requiring the State to provide counsel with prepared police reports upon appearance of counsel.
- The State refused to provide police reports before the probable cause hearing; the court postponed the hearing and entertained briefing on the court’s authority to order such discovery.
- The circuit court concluded it had inherent authority to order pre-hearing disclosure and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution for the State’s noncompliance with the standing order.
- The State appealed, arguing the circuit court lacks authority to order police reports before a probable cause hearing because discovery of police reports is permitted only by statute or rule.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the circuit court — a court of limited jurisdiction — has inherent authority to order disclosure of police reports before a preliminary/probable cause hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Laux) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court may promulgate a standing rule requiring disclosure of prepared police reports before a probable cause hearing | Circuit court lacks authority; police reports discoverable only by statute or court rule, and none authorize pre-hearing disclosure | No statute or rule prohibits a circuit court judge from ordering disclosure; court has inherent authority absent prohibition | Court exceeded authority in promulgating a blanket standing rule requiring disclosure in all cases; such a standing order is impermissible |
| Whether the circuit court has inherent authority to order disclosure of police reports in particular cases prior to a probable cause hearing | Inherent authority should not override precedent that police reports are not discoverable except by statute/rule | Circuit court may exercise inherent authority in absence of express statutory prohibition to order disclosure when justice requires it | Circuit court does have inherent authority, in its discretion, to order disclosure in particular cases upon a particularized showing that the material is needed to show lack of probable cause and the interests of justice require it |
| Whether prepared police reports are categorically protected by the work-product doctrine | Police reports constitute prosecutor work product and are privileged from pretrial discovery | Some police reports may be discoverable; no categorical protection | Prepared police reports are not categorically protected as work product; State may assert work-product claims and seek redaction after in camera review |
| Whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction for noncompliance with the standing discovery order | Not articulated by State as proper; State argued lack of authority to comply | Court dismissed case for noncompliance with its standing order | Dismissal was an unsustainable exercise of discretion because the standing mandatory rule was invalid; case reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sorrell, 120 N.H. 472 (trial court discretion to rule on pre-trial discovery matters)
- State v. Healey, 106 N.H. 308 (trial court may compel discovery if interests of justice require)
- State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228 (work-product protection for law-enforcement notes recognized)
- State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224 (court may require production to prevent manifest injustice)
- State v. Gagne, 129 N.H. 93 (district court inherent authority to order competency evaluations and protect rights)
- State v. Williams, 115 N.H. 437 (probable cause hearing has adversarial protections)
- State v. Chase, 109 N.H. 296 (preliminary hearing is not a trial; purpose is probable cause determination)
- State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179 (work-product doctrine focuses on substantive information and attorney mental processes)