State v. Tanner
248 P.3d 61
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Tanner was convicted on five counts of distribution of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone after a controlled-buy operation in 2006.
- Prosecution witnesses (Task Force officers) supervised five confidential informant buys; CI was searched and monitored before each buy.
- Defendant timely moved to compel discovery of warrant returns, probable cause affidavits, and Task Force procedures.
- Trial court denied the motion to compel after oral argument.
- Jury trial occurred; Defendant was convicted on all five distribution counts.
- On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying discovery, and seeks reversal or remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion on Rule 16(a)(5) good cause | State contends discovery was not required | Tanner argues material is necessary to prepare defense and assess CI credibility | Yes, court erred on good cause standard |
| Whether the error was harmless given overwhelming evidence | State asserts strong proof of guilt | Tanner argues denial could have affected outcome | Harmless error; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mickelson, 848 P.2d 677 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (trial court abuse of discovery ruled harmless where overwhelming evidence)
- State v. Spry, 21 P.3d 675 (Utah App. 2001) (good cause discovery must aid defense preparation)
- Gardner v. Board of County Comm'rs, 178 P.3d 893 (Utah 2008) (trial court has broad discretion in discovery)