*1 Cole, Stake v. 714, 718, 719, say: “It is true nor the trial did not rest its decision court uphold defendants seek
do
ground suggested. think now and that the
court well have done so
decision here on affirmed rule
ground. are committed to the
we must affirm trial court if suf appears in
ficient basis the record therefor though placed upon
even ruling ground. ap
different The burden
pellant to demonstrate error this he has proper support
not done if the record shows complained
for the ruling of.” See Brockmeier,
Houlahan 545, 549; Bink Carpenter, Iowa,
holder v. Martin, Iowa, In re Estate of N. 401, 403, 404,
W.2d and citations each.
The order of the trial dismissing court
plaintiff’s petition was correct.
Affirmed.
All concur. Justices Iowa, Petitioner,
STATE of EADS, Respondent.
Honorable William R.
No. 53408.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
April 8, 1969. *2 accuses Elliott Charles
Ricehill the crime of murder in violation Iowa, 690.1, of section Code of 1966. grand jury After a indictment been returned, defendant his motion to re- filed produce eviden- quire the certain State to tiary inspection, copying, for material analysis. Defendant asks that following: by 1. secured Cedar Written statements Rapids Department Police all witnesses testify par- expects ticularly Ches- those Linda Beltram and Davenport; ter Copy report covering 2. of the F. B. I. evidence; analysis physical certain Investigation police offi- cers;
4. Photographs taken deceased police in the course of their investi- ; gation Certain seized crime, following alleged cluding wrist watches of both deceased, linen, whiskey bottle bed therefrom, cap tested all which were defendant; analyzed for Report autopsy performed upon Percy County Harris, deceased Linn Dr. Examiner, Skopec, path- Medical and Dr. ; ologist “Any exculpatory posses- evidence” county sion of the department or the attorney which would assist defendant establishing his innocence. Faches, Atty., County Thomas G. William hearing Judge A was held R. W. Atty., Horan, and Thomas County Asst. M. Eads, stipulated which was all items peti- Wilkinson, Rapids, for Jr., Cedar requested by pos- defendant were in the
J. tioner. autopsy session of the (except later) which was to become available Dumbaugh, Ce- Fred Paul Kinion and R. produced. and could be respondent. for Rapids, dar claimed all of Defendant this material LeGRAND, Justice. “properly prepare for prosecution “complete trial” and out of to afford him and in- matter arises in telligent Court Linn District assistance of counsel.” pending now virtually unappreciated The trial court allowed in its country the motion in our except entirety paragraph the catchall century almost a and a half.” production exculpa- asking all evidence paper, In the at page same Justice tory to defendant. Brennan comments: “Few issues raise more sharply discovery] does criminal [than legality seeks to test the ideological opposed basic clash the- between *3 order is writ of certiorari. This of Perhaps ories justice. of criminal this is holdings. permissible previous our under for the reason bitterness that has often 816, Rees, 813, N.W. State v. 139 debate.” marked the 408, 406, claims 2d and citations. discovery and asking pre-trial defendant is this dispute Both to have had their sides in cases. right that there is criminal no such champions Arrayed against and still do. pre-trial disclosure information were of discovery not is true It (then Cardozo the New York of Justice charged with a crime. to available one Appeals) Court in rel. of ex Lemon 905, 903, Court, 253 v. District Iowa Court, 24, Supreme 245 N.Y. 156 N.E. McClain, 317,318; 256 114 N.W.2d 84, 86, 200; 52 A.L.R. Learned Justice 767, 175, 764, 181, 4 Iowa 125 Garsson, Hand (D.C., in States United A.L.R.3d N.Y.), 291 F. and Chief Justice Supreme Jersey Vanderbilt of the New However, deny a defendant that does not Tune, 203, Court in 13 evidentiary information to access possession and which is in trial. him a fair assure go unchallenged. But do not have already enough said little leave controversy. new no means doubt as to where Brennan stands. Justice points out Brennan William As Justice J. His views are well in stated in his dissent years. “The In it dates back almost 150 Tune, supra, page when he Sporting Event Criminal Prosecution: Jersey was An- sitting on New court. Truth?”, Washington Uni- Quest for firmly pre- other who recommends liberal 284, he versity Quarterly page Law discovery Roger is Chief J. Justice said: Traynor Supreme Court of Cali- fornia. See “Ground Lost and Found in appear resistance strange that “It Discovery,” Criminal Law Re- N.Y.U. in so stubborn criminal should view Wigmore also Evi- VI See America, Marshall when Chief Justice * dence, * Ed., * page Third section approve so strongly to it. seemed support refer for the doctrine in the presided a Circuit he [A]s Justice later. At that Aaron Burr. celebrated trial of behalf request on Burr’s was made problem Our a letter addressed consideration pre-trial inspection to the fundamental us is confined the President the United States principle present pur At- of fair trial. possession For in the of the United States poses argument we take as justice chief did established the torney. Although great that, suppression in the com- absence of evi there an absolute not hold was defendant, dence characteristically strong disclosure, favorable to states pel do in process by pre-trial violate due denying that the letter view terms stated discovery. relevance, Am.Jur.2d, Depositions was evidentiary indeed Discovery, 721; Brady page section Govern- useful cross-examination Maryland, not, it could U.S. 83 S.Ct. witness at the ment Maryland, withheld from L.Ed.2d Giles v. 386 U.S. fairness to the precedent was S.Ct. 17 L.Ed.2d But him. value unjustified to be shows these fears Kelly, 249 Iowa theory practice. N.Y. and unfulfilled in Tharp, 258 Iowa Washington However, also U. Law Review 78, 81. Quarterly, supra, pages Law States, 360 U.S. Palermo v. United Dis- Experiment in Criminal the effect “Vermont’s L.Ed.2d 79 S.Ct. covery,” (1967), page 732. See “constitu- 53 A.B.A. question considering this J. Courts,” Report: “Task Force the surface.” close grounds tional [are] 41-44, (published by the (1967), pages Enforce- President’s Commission Law there agreed generally It is Justice.) ment and Administration of discovery at common no statute, how in the absence Even law. retrospect opinion v. Bur- our in courts have ever, today deny that few ris, 198 N.W. evi compel disclosure power herent although alleged based on failure necessary in *4 by the when dence 771.13, comply with what is now section Deposi Am.Jur.2d, justice. interests of Code, presaged nevertheless the trend to- 308, page Discovery, section and tions policy pre-trial ward a liberal disclosure Cases, Discovery in Criminal Pretrial apparent today. of information which is so 293, 322. Review, pages Law 12 Stanford said, we to holding There after the failure this throughout cited Virtually all the cases testimony file the with minutes exhibits rely on a which opinion, except those few ground was not a for aside the in- setting discovery, allowing specific rule or statute dictment : in the trial court power of emphasize the * * * to discretion judicial the of sound exercise “We are the disclosure, subject only to re compel such pro- arbitrarily state exhibits withhold thereof. for an abuse view with- grand jury duced and then the before warning, right inspection out on the arguments principal defendant, part of them unex- introduce these: are pectedly upon the trial of the cause. fairly state should disclose its intentions in- the defendant afford (1) It would * * *; such a matter at all times and perjured tes- to opportunity creased power, court has and should the the to meet evidence timony and to fabricate state, upon require exercise the to same, be case; would (2) the State’s application by permit to an intimidation; bribe, and subject threat inspection any proper under conditions of compel the de- cannot (3) since and all exhibits which used are before evidence, disclosure fendant to disclose grand jury and to be which intended an the defendant afford by the would upon offered the trial trial; (4) and advantage at unreasonable right case. A defendant’s can and should any be- unnecessary in event disclosure is fully guarded this manner.” information sources cause of existing law. has under which this We believe statement is con 127; 12 Review Law Nebraska See sistent with principles philosophy ; Law Yale Review 293 Law Stanford upon present-day opinions are ex Review Law 39 N.Y.U. Journal tending greater discovery rights in criminal Quarterly Law Washington U. prosecutions: surprise guile For Tune, pages supra, at should, possible, as far as be removed see problems and allied this a discussion of just arena criminal trials Annotations, A.L.R.3d F.R.D. 47 has in civil cases. fa- by disputed those reasons are These Although cases. discovery in directly criminal never ruled voring greater is, little there the matters presented us, what here They experience, claim counsel said, for furnished. fendant asked was We of cases to a number our attention call trial court apparently approval, with “The con- problems. None is related volving circumstances, production examination did order but present trolling under documents, used photographs, exhibits discussing briefly them refer we any conjunction testimony -with the issues now raised. whose evidence was attached witness Bittner, 209 Iowa indictment, together statements 60S, denied defendant 227 N.W. Skult.ety given by Leanna his al- confession * * added.) (Emphasis however, so, accomplice. did leged was not subpoena was basis, duces tecum this “No was anything while on what issued, sought and no issued, requested to be expedition.” obviously “fishing adopted means known to the law the re- counsel effectuate Tharp, 228, 138 quest another.” attorney one made 78, 80, 81, next. There the (Emphasis added.) depositions un- attorney taken county (prior to the amend- der section 769.18 rested, at apparently there The refusal afforded defendant ment of 1965 which partially, least on the failure counsel present and to cross-examine proper seek the information wanted De- section). witness called under procedure. deposi- request *5 to examine fendant’s 1219, 1221, 1222, Kelly, 249 State v. affirmed, basing tions was refused and we 562, 564, with a defendant dealt N.W.2d least, part holding, ground our on the trial, who, “copies all demanded prior to product of depositions the the work were statements, oth- investigations, reports, and county attorney’s the We also com- office. any, evidence, confessions, if including er failure to take ad- mented defendant’s ap- that use.” the state intends to We procedure vantage of the available to him— proved this “broad the trial court’s denial of particulars. a bill of based fishing expedition.” and blind We not demand this fact defendant did on the parenthetically Tharp mention that in We (cid:127)any and had failed to specific document case, a we relied on Vermont Hackel statements, reports, con- any such or William, show Vt. A.2d possession were fessions State’s condemning discovery in strongly were even in existence. pre longer criminal cases. This is no vailing rule in v. Ma Vermont. Vermont The our matter next came to attention honey, 122 Vt. Hodge, 252 Iowa approved a N.W.2d where we Johnson, In State 259 Iowa request, during ruling denying remand, trial second after N.W.2d B. I. examine notes which an F. our matters defend- his ex- during had referred direct produced substantially witness ant wanted been ruling amination. We be within into on trial gone the first and were al- .held the trial court’s ready held, too, discretion. known him. We Implied law, under our Consent Stump, could his have results of blood test but 210, 220, complaint made sample the work sheets the fluid grant the trial court refused to because used. application produc of defendant’s copies state papers, up problem' met again tion books with the We White, testimony grand jury. Iowa, ments before court, specific it We affirmed trial but issue —en- turned on de- significant trapment. note that much of what We held fact-finding process in the vital engage so tapes of communi- to use the State, to his later defense. Meanwhile the directed defense and to establish cations resources, manpower and with unlimited question this to determine trial court already completed investigation, its in camera. has police records by examination of charge even a formal sometimes effect there the discussed We Jencks perchance in filed. If the defendant should we question, had done this Act Kelly, investigation, own be able conduct his previous opinions. State several often he after the trail is when starts Tharp, supra. reit- cold We supra; ordinary his evidence and sources of previously about said erate what up. argument have Act, rely on it formation dried do not we but Jencks already made most has been knows reach here. for the conclusion we things, and if guilty. these this is true he is these determina- find none of cases We he in- point presumed But at this he is problem present our nor inconsistent tive of nocent. Stump is Perhaps here. decision with our anything presumption than If approved closely in There we point. most maxim, meaningless are obligated exercise of discretion court’s person charged afford a with commission partial under circum- disclosure favor fair of a crime a to defend himself. chance us. quite similar to those now before stances admit, instance, lawyer is must jurisdictions have considered Other help little he has none of the treated legal writers have question He ade- tools with which work. cannot help in endlessly. look to them for quately defend if he is denied access must discussing particular issues we discharge the facts. State cannot here decide. duty give simply a fair trial extending “safeguards” one hand already As mentioned the ultimate I. withdrawing them with other. our decision must be test measured is that fair trial. Defend of a present case, for in II. In the more, is entitled to and he must ant no *6 stance, justifies denial of no reasonable rule However, it only less. is have no not opportunity defendant to examine an who fair trial. defendant is entitled a expects to evidence the State too, represented by prosecution, Society, subject against him. It none Haffa, equal an one. State has v. objections against urged disclosure. 1275, 1283, 35, 246 Iowa 71 N.W.2d analyzed. already has The State Case, 1030, 1019, v. 247 Iowa State noted, importance has Anything been 233, 240; Kelly, supra, N.W.2d State v. detailed, oppor There is and tested. no 91 N.W.2d 564. Iowa tunity perjury or falsification. frequently We have mentioned var- course, has protections safeguards in- ious which testify to cross-examine the who prose- sulate the defendant unfair evi- regarding which such manner in They ways cution. are stated in various ade- dence incriminates him. How can he Court, in v. State District 253 Iowa pre-trial preparation ? quately do so without 317, 322; Tharp, 114 N.W.2d usually testimony, he How does meet witness, by a expert spur-of-the- an White, Iowa, v. State Layman v. cross-examination? moment recognize, however, must the cir- State, Okl.Cr., 355 P.2d cumstances under which defendant is af- cer safeguards. frequently
forded these He it has Here the State admits custody; watches, whiskey more often than bottle not tain wrist funds; linen, having any op- without and seldom all taken as cap, has he and bed portunity investigation At least make an this crime. some relevance to Tribbett, Ill.App.2d 232 N.E.2d items were tested for these
some
Preston,
13 Misc.2d
of Investi-
v.
the Federal Bureau
State
may
cases
They may or
548. See also
col-
laboratory.
N.Y.S.2d
gation
why
Annotation,
reason
lected in
7 A.L.R.3d
see no
important, but we
them to deter-
not examine
reach the same result
III. We
they
are what
mine for himself
copy
request for
dealing with defendant’s
says they are.
autopsy
autopsy report. The
of the
ra-
departure from the
requires no
statutory authority. Sec
performed under
Burris, supra,
v.
State
tionale of State v.
Iowa,
report
339.6,
tion
Code of
White, supra.
Stump, supra, and
v.
in evidence
section
is made admissible
pre-
not themselves
the items were
While
person pre
339.9,
provides the
jury and did not
grand
sented
subpoenaed report may
paring
minutes,
filed with
become exhibits
case
“in
criminal
a witness
civil or
part
important
play an
nonetheless
did
by any party
the cause.”
first,
securing,
presentation
in the State’s
indictment. Four
and then an
a bind-over
argued
well be
It
testified,
pre-
at the
either
police officers
autopsy report
copy
of the
jury,
grand
liminary hearing or before
Sixty-Sec-
chapter
Laws
under
de-
concerning
physicial evidence —its
68A,
Assembly,
(Chapter
ond General
seized,
its
scription,
when
its location
However, we do not
Annotated.)
Code
Bureau
subsequent
the Federal
testing
on that statute. Funda-
decision
base our
Investigation.
pro-
requires the
mental fairness
may pre-
so
duce
simply told about this
That
the officers
orderly
pare
findings
to meet
an
the evidence itself
producing
instead
fashion.
and effectual
change defendant’s
as exhibits does not
upon
It
is still evidence
plight one bit.
support
of this conclusion
was,
part,
indictment
which the
based.
with more and more courts each IV. We 299; court, too, ordering production Review, 293, of Law Petition of Stanford 188; 19, 187, analysis items Joseph, Di 394 Pa. 145 A.2d F.B.I. clothing, sam Oldham, 124, evidence, including 92 Idaho 438 P.2d State v. hair, 278; from the hands and 275, Mahoney Superior ples scrapings ex rel. v. State 887, 890; Court, 74, defendant and fingernails of both the 78 Ariz. 275 P.2d Court, 228, deceased, taken from vari Superior fingerprints 208 106 N.H. 833, 1; apartment. 832, People places in the victim’s A.2d 7 A.L.R.3d v. ous
773
inspect
copy
He
claims a
reports before
need to examine
investigation reports
“the
made
officers
urgent because
trial is all the more
McDermott, Walker, Vanous,
technical find-
and Driscoll
invariably
highly
based on
by well-qualified
concerning
investigation
ex-
their
into the
presented
and are
ings
alleged
a rea-
in the
crime
indictment.”
perts. Failure to afford
opportunity
meet such
sonable
presents
entirely
prob-
an
This
different
based on
by a
cross-examination
lem,
goes
one which
heart of the
by producing
background,
adequate factual
puzzle as to how courts can reach the deli-
means,
experts,
some other
his own
guarantee
cate balance
both a
essential
“trial
been called
what has
results
indeed
trial.
defendant and the State a fair
identity upon request would dispute There is no concerning the trial
instantaneously eliminate that protective setting court’s order forth the Here, too, source information. conditions under which defendant add, lies the real threat intimida- inspect question, reprisal opponents tion and which the adequate and we hold it protect discovery fear. evidence from the possibility of tampering requiring the hold the order or change. We direct that the evidence police reports subject copies inspection State to be made available to *9 approv that was an of discretion abuse and counsel later not than one week unreasonably procedure filing al from the opinion. of such would of this firmatively prove guilt to in Divisions V which the set out For reasons —and not trial as should conceal.” VI, the court disagree with requires the to the order which inconsistency There is a between basic police witnesses and statements of recognition principle suppres- that of the find here we reports. the record Under sion evidence favorable to defendant vio- anwas abuse of portion of the order that process lates due a refusal allow writ that as to the court’s discretion. a defendant the to discover evidence un- is sustained. part the trial court’s order by say really covered the What we State. is: “The defendant can seek and obtain part annulled Writ sustained new accident he that discovers . . . part. suppressed.” favorable evidence has been recognize It does little good to but BECKER, concur, except All deny Justices the implement right. that tools to in the result. J., who concurs Fowler, P.2d- Ariz. “* * prosecutors *. 127states: Both BECKER, specially). (concurring Justice police, public and the acting as officers state, uphold behalf are the sworn the result. I concur in duty protect law bound rights prose- innocent as well as to majority court’s reverses duty guilty. primary cute the Their is not of witnesses produce statements order to convict, justice but to see that done. trial. The trial secured Canon Canons of Professional Ethics. on this issue. should be affirmed court prosecutor A fails to reveal who evidence prosecutor cannot generally It clearly would accused’s defense aid favor- constitutionally withhold sight would seem his proper to have lost 32-36; A.L.R.3d able to defendant. objective. Should his failure be deliber- case and later service. A.L.R.2d attempt ate to employ defendant’s unknow- ingness to prosecution’s advantage, own Maryland, Brady 373 U.S. S.Ct. particularly his rep- actions would become hold states: “We now 10 L.Ed.2d * * rehensible. *. prosecution of by the suppression that the upon an accused re- evidence favorable “A man possible prospects faced with the quest process where evi- violates due losing subjected or being life to an pun- or guilt dence is material either prison denied, extended term should hot ishment, good faith irrespective of state, at the whim of the evidence which prosecution.” faith of the bad may be vital A defendant’s to his defense. regarded to a fair trial must not be Maryland, Giles v. U.S. * * lightly. 17 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Justice “* * relates, My point agree, point, Fortas *. I would at this states: least with discovery majority’s the defendant’s refusal to allow prosecution’s purposes prepara- containing case officer’s impressions. surprise, talking But here we are not tion or avoidance impressions. talking with in dealt Rule but the State’s about We are about it, voluntarily duty, They I see statements made witnesses. should constitutional produced, pos- disclose in its as to material exclusive least helpful the state session which is has not indicated intend to exonerative not af- use. defense—which State will