STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V. STEVEN J. HATFIELD, APPELLANT.
No. S-18-1107
Nebraska Supreme Court
Filed September 13, 2019
304 Neb. 66
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets, 304 Nebraska Reports
Criminal Law: Courts: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and its review is limited to an examination of the record for error or abuse of discretion. - Courts: Appeal and Error. Both the district court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on the record.
- Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court‘s inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
- Pretrial Procedure: Appeal and Error. Trial courts have broad discretion with respect to sanctions involving discovery procedures, and their rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
- Criminal Law: Pretrial Procedure. Discovery in a criminal case is generally controlled by either a statute or court rule.
Appeal from the District Court for Gage County: JULIE D. SMITH, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven J. Mercure, of Nestor & Mercure, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.
HEAVICAN, C.J., MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, STACY, FUNKE, and PAPIK, JJ.
INTRODUCTION
Steven J. Hatfield was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI). His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the district court, sitting as an intermediate court of appeals. He appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Hatfield was convicted in the county court for Gage County of DUI and appealed that conviction to the district court for Gage County. The district court reversed the county court‘s judgment based not on the arguments made by Hatfield, but instead upon the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota.1 This court reviewed that decision and concluded that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to a pre-Birchfield warrantless blood draw and that the results of Hatfield‘s blood test were therefore admissible.2 As such, we found that the district court, sitting as an appellate court, erred in reversing Hatfield‘s conviction and vacating his sentence. We remanded the cause for the district court to consider Hatfield‘s original errors.
Upon remand, the district court considered Hatfield‘s assignment of error alleging that the county court erred in failing to exclude evidence that was offered by the State in violation of both the court‘s June 29, 2015, order of discovery and
The facts relating to this discovery dispute are as follows: The county court entered an order of discovery on June 29, 2015. That order was in response to an oral motion made at a pretrial hearing. The State had already filed a notice on February 3, 2015, indicating that it had complied with discovery consisting of 51 pages of documents and that other evidence was available for review with law enforcement or at the Gage County Attorney‘s office.
Jury selection was held on November 5, 2015. After the jury was empaneled, the county court took up Hatfield‘s sixth motion in limine. At the hearing, Hatfield argued that he had not received a list of witnesses the State intended to call, which he claimed was required under
At no point during the course of this argument did Hatfield ask for a continuance. The State, however, did seek a continuance in the event the court was inclined to grant the sixth motion in limine, because in the State‘s view, a continuance was the proper cure for delay of notification of witnesses. The county court ultimately denied the motion in limine, and trial began.
At the conclusion of the first day of trial, the county court indicated it wanted to revisit the sixth motion in limine. That issue was again addressed the morning prior to the second day of trial. Following arguments at which the parties offered case law in support of their respective positions, the court noted that it did not want to grant a continuance because the jury had already been empaneled and because in any case, barring the use of evidence was one remedy available but was not the
Hatfield also contends the State failed to disclose the conviction upon which it was relying to support a second-offense charge against Hatfield. The district court rejected this claim, noting that Hatfield was aware the complaint charged a second offense and that Hatfield had been provided with his driver‘s abstract identifying by case number the prior DUI case. Hatfield was offered, but declined, a continuance in connection with this objection.
In this second appeal, the district court concluded that the county court had not erred, and it consequently affirmed Hatfield‘s conviction and sentence. Hatfield now appeals that decision to this court.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Hatfield assigns that the district court (1) erred in affirming the county court‘s admission of evidence offered at trial that was not disclosed to him as was required by the court‘s June 29, 2015, order and by
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1-3] In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and its review is limited to an examination of the record for error
[4] Trial courts have broad discretion with respect to sanctions involving discovery procedures, and their rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.6
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Hatfield argues two separate incidents in which the State failed to disclose evidence. First, Hatfield contends the State failed to file witness and document lists despite being ordered to do so and that as such, its witnesses should not have been permitted to testify and certain documents—specifically the CLIA certificate and title 177 of the Nebraska Administrative Code—should not have been admitted into evidence. Hatfield also argues that the State did not provide a copy of a prior conviction sufficient to support a finding that Hatfield had previously been convicted of DUI.
[5] Discovery in a criminal case is generally controlled by either a statute or court rule.7 Nebraska‘s principal discovery statute,
Hatfield‘s arguments are without merit. The record shows that by the time the county court ordered the parties to engage in discovery, the State had, over 3 months prior, forwarded 51 pages of documents to Hatfield and informed him that still other evidence was available for his review at its offices or with law enforcement. That notice did not include a witness list. By the time the order for discovery was made, discovery had already taken place. There was no indication from a pretrial discussion about discovery, or the State‘s notice, that the parties anticipated a forthcoming witness list.
Hatfield filed his sixth motion in limine 9 months after discovery first commenced. In that motion, he made specific reference to the witnesses and documentation he believed to be missing. At least as of that date, it was clear Hatfield was aware of what discovery he had not received, yet our record does not indicate that he filed a motion to compel or sought a continuance. Instead, in the late afternoon of the day before trial, Hatfield filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the State from offering this evidence at trial.
While a court may order that a party not be permitted to offer evidence at trial which it failed to disclose, this court has stated
The fact that Hatfield‘s driver‘s abstract—which listed the challenged prior conviction—was disclosed placed Hatfield on notice of the conviction the State planned to use to enhance his sentence. Hatfield could have investigated the conviction in more detail; he apparently chose not to do so. At the time of sentencing, not only did Hatfield not seek a continuance, but he declined one offered by the county court. In addition, the State noted at the sentencing hearing that a certified copy of the conviction had been available for review at its offices should Hatfield have chosen to review it in person.
We reject Hatfield‘s claims due to his failure to seek a continuance, and we find no prejudice owing to any belated disclosures on the State‘s part. Hatfield contends that because the State did not file a witness list, all its witnesses were effectively surprise witnesses. Specifically, Hatfield argues that Deputy Robert Sandersfeld and Investigator John Chavez of the Gage County sheriff‘s office were surprise witnesses involved in the chain of custody of his blood sample test and that he was unable to prepare for these witnesses. But Hatfield does not show what different preparation he would have made or how that preparation would have changed the examination of Sandersfeld and Chavez, let alone the examination of all of the State‘s witnesses. Moreover, we observe that the record shows that while a witness list was not provided, the identities of the witnesses the State ultimately called, including Sandersfeld and Chavez, were available in the discovery made or offered to Hatfield. This claim fails.
Finally, we reject the assertion that Hatfield was prejudiced by the State‘s failure to disclose and provide a copy of his prior DUI conviction for enhancement purposes. Hatfield was charged with second-offense DUI. The information filed against him referenced the same conviction he now complains was not disclosed to him. As noted above, Hatfield was provided with a copy of his driver‘s abstract which included the now-challenged conviction.
We have consistently held that in discovery disputes where a continuance can cure any prejudice caused by a failure to disclose, it is that remedy that should be utilized. We reject Hatfield‘s invitation to overrule that authority.
We review the lower court‘s action for an abuse of discretion. Hatfield declined to ask for a continuance, declined to join in the State‘s suggestion of a continuance at trial, and at sentencing declined to accept the court‘s offer of a continuance. Hatfield has also failed to show that he was prejudiced by the State‘s belated disclosures. Hatfield‘s arguments on appeal are without merit.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the decision of the district court affirming the judgment and conviction of the county court.
AFFIRMED.
FREUDENBERG, J., not participating.