State v. Naple

Wyo- stipulation, recommending that Supreme publicly discipline

ming Court reviewing the record Murray. After

Mr. recommendation, Wyoming Su- publicly its order

preme Court entered Murray him

censuring required Mr. Bar $100

reimburse fee of pay an administrative

costs

$500.” Respondent

19. should reimburse handling

Wyoming State Bar for the costs of matter, pay capped $100.00 than fee later

administrative of $500.00 1, 2006.

November unanimously by a made

This decision Respon- of Professional

quorum of the Board

sibility. It so recommended is therefore

September Richard Honaker

/a/ Honaker, Richard Vice-Chair Responsibility

Board of Professional WY Wyoming, Petitioner, STATE NAPLE, Respondent. Jeanne

Laura 05-113.

No.

Supreme Wyoming.

Sept.

Representing Crank, Petitioner: Patrick J. Attorney General; Rehurek, Deputy Paul S. Attorney General; Pauling, D. Michael Sen- Attorney ior Argument Assistant General. Pauling. Mr. Representing Respondent: Kenneth M. Koski, Defender, PDP; State Public Donna Domonkos, Counsel; Ryan D. Appellate R. Roden, Senior Appellate Assistant Counsel. Argument by Ms. Domonkos. VOIGT, C.J., GOLDEN,

Before *, KITE, BURKE, HILL JJ. KITE, Justice. The district court dismissed with

prejudice charge a controlled substances Laura Jeanne as a sanction for the State’s failure to with its discov- ery obligations. peti- We the State’s tion a writ of for review and conclude the authority, district court had the 16(d)(2), W.R.Cr.P. to dismiss the criminal prejudice to sanction the State violating discovery obligation. That must, however, authority cautiously be used proper after consideration of the factors, including reasons for the discov- violation, ery defendant, possibility imposing and the lesser sanc- tions such as a continuance. The district court abused discretion this case failing appropriate inquiry conduct determine whether the severe sanction of justified. dismissal was Con- sequently, we reverse and remand. * argument. Chief Justice time of oral attorney jury, opening told his defense

ISSUES trial, was that her statement statement present and Ms. [¶2] any police report. not referenced for review: the same issue Trooper Biseeglia the first wit- was court abuse its discretion Did the district testify During cross- at trial. his ness charge dismissing in examination, report a written he referred to against respondent? Na- Trooper included Ms. by Green which Naple inculpatory Ms. ple’s statement. FACTS mistrial, claiming preju- she was moved for a Many underlying facts of of [¶ 3] by produce failure to the State’s diced particularly relevant to the are not light in of Trooper report, especially Green’s Therefore, appeal. we question presented on The opening statement. defense counsel’s perti- only facts which are will discuss those granted request a mis- court her pas- was a Naple our Ms. nent to decision. and the case. In its oral dismissed by High- a senger stopped van case, dismissing court ruling the district Biseeglia. way Trooper During the Patrol option of re- had the stated that State stop, passengers of admitted to one the other Naple. filing Ms. marijuana. Troop- having a amount of small a recon- The State filed motion for [¶ 6] er to the scene with Green was summoned dismissal, requesting the of the sideration drug dog, per- and officers his detection simply set a new trial date district court vehicle, recovering of the formed search require the to initiate a rather than State pound small containers and a one several Naple response prosecution. filed new Ms. marijuana. occupants All of the container request- specifically and State’s motion Trooper were arrested. While the vehicle charge prejudice. ed dismissed arresting Naple, appar- she Green was Ms. motion, Naple support In of her referred marijuana her medicine ently stated the was and to several other cases the local district prescription had for it. she had failed to circuit courts where State charged [¶ State discovery obligations and had comply with its possession one of a controlled sub count that future violations would be been warned deliver, stance with intent in violation punished by prejudice. (Lexis-Nexis (a)(ii) Wyo. § Ann. OS1 Stat. 35—7—1 did not apparently 7] The district court 3)1 accompanying 200 affidavit motions, hearing pending on but hold referred to Ms. Na- criminal information the parties’ took motions under advisement ple’s Trooper Green about the statement dismissing an entered order being pleaded marijuana her medicine. She prejudice. against Ms. The State attorney guilty charge, not her to the Writ filed Petition for of Review discovery from the State. The demanded After in this Court. Nature Certiorari filed a notice with the district court petition of the and related careful review representing complied it had with its discov materials, petition. we the State’s ery obligations. police reports of the None provided to the defense the State refer OF REVIEW STANDARD Trooper Naple’s enced Ms. statement A Relying on lack of written trial court discretion Green. docu statement, determining proper for a inculpatory sanction mentation of her provided, part: upon imprisoned pertinent for not 35-7-1031 conviction Section act, years, (a) more ten fined not more than Except than as authorized it is unlaw- manufacture, deliver, ($10,000.00), any person both[.] or ten thousand dollars or ful for deliver, possess with intent to manufacture or Any person vio- a controlled substance. who respect to: lates this subsection with (ii) Any other controlled substance classified I, III, guilty II or of a crime and in Schedule (A) discovery responsibili

party’s violation its Statement Defendant. State, Lawson 994 P.2d ties. (i) Upon written of a demand defen- (Wyo.2000); Lindsey v. 725 P.2d permit dant the state shall the defendant (Wyo.1986). “The decision inspect copy photograph: or addressing the breach of a Any relevant written or recorded be set aside for an abuse of will discre defendant, statements made or Lindsey, 725 P.2d at 655. In tion.” deter thereof, copies possession, within the mining the trial court abused state, custody or control of the the exis- discretion, ultimate “the issue whether known, tence of which is the exer- reasonably the court could conclude as known, diligence may cise due become Lawson, 994 P.2d did.” at 947. state; attorney for the any The oral substance state- Although [¶ 9] the State articulates ment which the state to intends offer in discretion, argues issue its as one also evidence at the trial made the defen- legal the trial court not the did authori dant whether or before after arrest[.] ty charge against to dismiss the prejudice ruling the court’s and violated separation powers the doctrine. Because (d) Regulation by Court. argument questions involves of law and issues,

implicates constitutional we review (2) Comply. any Failure to time —If ¶ State, 8, 98, novo. v. 2004 de Messer WY during the proceedings, course the it is 12, 15 (Wyo.2004). 96 P.3d brought to the attention of the court that a party comply rule, has failed to with this DISCUSSION may party permit the court such order discovery inspection, grant or a contin- Authority A. Court’s to Dismiss Crimi- uance, prohibit party from introduc- Charges Prejudice nal With disclosed, ing evidence not or it enter granted [¶ 10] The trial court a mistrial just such other it deems under charge against and dismissed may specify circumstances. prejudice because the State had violated time, place making manner of and discovery obligation by failing produce discovery inspection may pre- Trooper report. juncture, At Green’s such scribe terms conditions as are warranted, agrees the State the mistrial was just. and, event, any the correctness of the particular importance W.R.Cr.P. Of grant district court’s decision to a mistrial is language our discussion is the which allows jury moot discharged. because the has been such the court “enter other order as it ¶ Newman, 41, 24, v. 2004 WY P.3d just deems circumstances.” claims, (Wyo.2004). 453-54 The State 16(d)(2). question presented W.R.Cr.P. however, the district court exceeded its au- language permits here is whether that a dis- thority when it prej- prosecution prej- trict court dismiss udice.2 udice because of the State’s violation of its comply [¶ 11] The State failed to with its discovery obligations. discovery obligations under W.R.Cr.P. 16 Wyoming’s Rule 16 is mod requires provide discovery the State to comparable eled after federal rule. specifically defense and addresses a federal is When rule similar to a discovery require- sanctions for violations of rule, give great weight prece “we to federal ments: pertaining dent” to that rule. v. Billis (a) Disclosure Evidence State. (Wyo.1990). 800 P.2d Federal

(1) 16(d)(2) Subject Information courts have Disclosure. considered whether Rule case, stage ruling any jeopardy argu- 2. At this there no claim as to future double implicate jeopardy second trial would double ment. opinion concerns. decision Our here offers no gov- exercise of discretion trict court’s court to allows trial dismiss govern for the factors: as a sanction erned several a defendant comply with its failure to ment’s government When fails See, e.g., States v. Denni United violations. order, with a the factors (10th Cir.1989); son, F.2d 259-60 in deter district court should consider (10th Peveto, F.2d 844 States United appropriate are mining if a sanction is also, Cir.1989). States United (1) delayed government the reasons the Cir.1978) (5th (indi Anderson, 574 F.2d materials, in producing requested power to dis cating the trial court had cluding government or not the prejudice an but did miss indictment faith when it failed com acted bad so); do refusing to abuse its discretion (2) order; ply with the Fahie, 419 Virgin Islands Government of to the defendant as extent (3rd Cir.2005) (discussing court dis F.3d 249 delay; government’s result of the preju to dismiss an indictment with cretion curing feasibility supervi under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 and its dice with a continuance. United States sory powers). The Tenth Circuit Court Euceda-Hernandez, 1307, 1312 768 F.2d Dennison, F.2d at 259- Appeals ruled in (11th Fernandez, Cir.1985); 780 F.2d authority, pur the district court had 1576. 16(d)(2), Rule to dismiss criminal suant to Wicker, at If sanction is 848 F.2d a against charges government as a sanction imposed, it should be “least severe However, discovery for violation of orders. accomplish prompt that ... sanction will noted, authority that must be exer compliance and full with the court’s discov Dennison, cised with extreme caution. See ery (quoting at Fernan orders.” Id. 1060 fact, In “instances F.2d at 260. 891 1576). dez, F.2d Nova 780 at Bank a appellate upheld an court has dis where Cf. States, 250, v. 487 108 Scotia United U.S. court’s dismissal of an indictment be trict (1988) 2369, 101 (holding L.Ed.2d 228 S.Ct. alleged are prosecutorial cause misconduct general court ex Id, that as a rule a district citing ‘few far between.’” United supervisory dismissing (10th power in Anderson, ceeds its 778 F.2d 602 Cir. States 1985). prosecutorial an indictment for misconduct Appeals The Tenth Circuit Court of noting prejudicial not to defendant applied following to the issue: test decide many may that errors be remedied of Criminal Proce The Federal Rules dismissal). other “A continu means than give dure trial courts broad discretion may normally ance desirable most imposing party sanctions on a who fails to government’s remedy for the failure to a comply discovery order: Wicker, with a order.” any during If of the time course 848 F.2d proceedings brought it is to the attention party the court that a has failed also, Dennison, 891 F.2d at 259-60. See rule, may comply with this the court 1251, Charley, 189 F.3d United States party permit order such (10th Cir.1999). 1261-62 continuance, inspection, grant a agree with the federal [¶ 13] We prohibit party introducing from evi- interpreting giving 16 precedent Rule disclosed, may not or it enter dence such courts discretion dismiss just under the other order as deems prejudice, but in extraor defendant may specify The court circumstances. dinary circumstances when less severe sanc time, place making and manner Am tions will not suffice. 21 Jur.2d Crimi inspection generally speaks § Law to the nal 784 prescribe such terms and conditions as exceptional circumstances which must just. are present justify dismissal of criminal case 16(d)(2). United Fed.R.Crim.Proc. See prejudice: (10th Wicker, 1059, States v. 848 F.2d 1060 Cir.1988); Fernandez, A criminal case is a court’s dismissal United States v. 780 (11th Cir.1986). 1573, resort, judge remedy of and a trial F.2d 1576 The dis- last

363 by ignoring his or rio abuses her discretion ease cited above in the context of other cases, steps. Such intermediate remedial dis- federal and we stated: for missal reserved severe situations holding judicial Tenorio’s de charging because dismissal of instrument partment has power the inherent to dis public prose- interest in the frustrates miss a criminal the interests of cution of crimes. justice directly contradicted Unit Supreme ed States Court’s statement Naple’s In granting mo 27, Ex [242 Parte United States U.S. 37 prejudice, tion to dismiss with the district (1916) (cited 72, S.Ct. 61 L.Ed. 129 favor ] court indicated had “inherent authori ably in this court’s Evans [v. 655 ty” impose that sanction. “Inherent” or (1982)]) judicial P.2d 1214 depart that the “supervisory” powers, powers include those power ment has no inherent to refuse to although explicitly to the court try charge upon a criminal considerations law, necessary are exercise legality charge; extraneous to the powers. court’s other United States Supreme the United States Court’s 505, 103 1974, 499, Hasting, 461 U.S. S.Ct. holding department that the executive (1983); Roadway Express, L.Ed.2d 96 Inc. v. (Borden- right the absolute prosecute 752, 764, 2455, Piper, 447 U.S. 100 S.Ct. Hayes, 357, kircher [v. 434 U.S. 98 S.Ct. (1980); Horn, L.Ed.2d 488 United States 663, (1978)] 604, 54 L.Ed.2d Weatherford 754, (1st Cir.1994). Hasting, 29 F.3d In Bursey, [v. U.S. S.Ct. Supreme recognized the United States (1977)], L.Ed.2d 30 and Corbitt New [v. purposes supervisory powers: three for “to Jersey, 439 U.S. 99 S.Ct. implement remedy of recog violation (1978)]); by L.Ed.2d 466 this court’s hold judicial rights, preserve integrity nized ing prosecutor that the does not remedy ... designed as a [and] deter plea negotiations enter into with a defen 505, illegal Hasting, conduct.” 461 at U.S. right prosecute dant has the and to rather (citations omitted). 103 1974 S.Ct. (Gooden accept plea bargain than a [v. State, (1985)]); Some recognized [¶ 15] courts have an 711 P.2d 405 by this “supervisory” power holdings judicial or to depart “inherent” court’s dismiss charges justice. criminal in of power suspend the interests ment has no inherent to a See, (Evans); e.g., Woodley, United v. 9 expunge States F.3d sentence final to a (9th 774, Cir.1993); Tenorio, People judgment 777 v. 3 of conviction which was without 89, 249, 993, Cal.Rptr. legal Cal.3d 89 only purposes 473 P.2d 996 error and of for (Cal.1970). However, even a civil restoring rights when court a defendant’s or of dismiss, power claims an alleviating being “inherent” it is his fear as a of classified (Stanton State, rarely Woodley, invoked. 9 [v. F.3d 777. habitual criminal 686 (1984)]); “[dismissing This is true because an grant indict- P.2d 587 an annulment (Ward prosecutor’s ment of charg- judgment is so intrusive on a final of [v. conviction justified State, ing authority (1987)]); that it is when the 735 P.2d 707 to reduce the government’s substantially preju- imposed legisla conduct sentence to one government impose diced the defendant and the fla- ture has not authorized the court to grantly disregarded (Williams State, original the limits of professional sentencing [v. (1984)]); conduct.” Id. 692 impose P.2d 233 to refuse to (Evans)-, grant probation sentence Wyoming precedent concerning [¶ 16] (Hicklin State, (1975)]); P.2d [v. 535 743 “supervisory” powers “inherent” does not (Sor grant parole or after incarceration provide a clear answer as to whether the State, (1979)]). enson 604 P.2d 1031 [v. properly district court concluded it had “in- Billis, 800 P.2d at 424-25. authority herent” to dismiss the for Billis, State’s In parties violation. we in- Both [¶ refer us to New 17] man, authority dicated courts do not power have “inher- as on “inherent” authority question. Newman, ent” charge dismiss criminal in In we reversed the dis justice. of Discussing prejudice the interest the Teno- trict court’s with dismissal 364 16(d)(2), necessary in this case. Rule against The trial

charges defendant. courts, grants trial request interpreted federal for mistri court Newman’s authority charges dismiss with courts the prosecutorial misconduct al on the basis for viola- charges against prejudice him as a sanction and then dismissed the As noted very limited situations. prejudice, finding the defendant’s tions Appeals for the States Court speedy right been violated. New United had Horn, ¶ 29 man, 1, appeal, we First Circuit United States P.3d at 446. On 88 (1st Cir.1994), supervisory 754 “the question of whether dis F.3d addressed the power in the sense that charges doctrine interstitial property dismissed trict no applies only there is effective his constitu when Newman violation of rule, statute, trial, con- provided right speedy but declined alternative tional to a also, Chambers trial would vio stitutional clause.” See whether second determine NASCO, 32, 2123, Inc., 44, right jeopar 501 U.S. S.Ct. placed not to be twice late his (1991). ¶¶ Thus, 28, Newman, 21-22, we limit our dy. P.3d at 452- 115 L.Ed.2d governed by 53, ruling in case to matters question, the courts have 455. Without W.R.Cr.P. power to dismiss speedy trial or double when defendant’s argues allowing the rights gen have violated. See jeopardy been district court to dismiss criminal actions also, State, erally, Sisneros Newman. prosecutor’s because of the discov ¶ 790, 17, (Wyo. 121 P.3d 2005 WY ery in an unconstitutional violations results trial). 2005) (speedy in New Our decision judiciary the executive intrusion into not, however, the issue of man did address power prosecute cases. branch’s exclusive authority Wyoming courts powers Wyoming are divid Governmental prejudice for the to dismiss a legislative, into executive ed three branches — obligation. State’s violation of a judicial, exercise the branch Accordingly, Newman is not instructive on Const., 2, § powers Wyo. art. another. presented case. issue Billis, 417, 423, compre In P.2d at we Meyers In 2005 WY hensively powers discussed the execu ¶ (Wyo.2005), the dis P.3d judicial government: branches tive trict court indicated it had the “inherent” department, exer- executive charge “in power to dismiss a the interests faithfully power cise its executive justice,” so. affirmed but declined to do We laws, power has the execute the exclusive the court’s refusal to dismiss a charging prose- to make the decision subject charge after the defendant had been person allegedly the has cute who commit- trials, ending ed each in a mistrial. to two by legislative the act determined the ted * * * unnecessary We found to determine wheth department Although to crime. be a power er court had the inherent the disti'ict that, prosecution this court stated once the under charges to dismiss the the circum prosecute, pro- to the made the decision presented it was obvi stances there because acquittal sentencing cess leads to which ous the district court its discre did abuse nature, fundamentally judicial in rec- we by refusing charges. to tion dismiss the judicial ognized process within the of ¶¶ also, 12-13, Meyers, 124 P.3d at See prosecutor’s prosecution pow- the criminal Annotation, Buchwalter, Dismissal of J. charges, charges, to reduce to er dismiss Charges of, in in the State CRIMINAL Furtherance charges, prose- to control defer sum 71 A.L.R. 5th cution, Of, Justice, by the Interest was exclusive and not shared (2006) (collecting and ana 1999 WL 728959 judicial department. considering lyzing state whether court cases properly exercised discretion dis courts judicial department pow- exercises its The charges jus of criminal in the interests miss docket, to control its to administer ers tice). business, adjudicate legal issues court Similarly, procedures that concerning on “inherent” or the criminal reliance necessarily proceeding, the criminal “supervisory” powers would to be un- attend seem adjudicate charges against legal and to substantive issues the with preju- Moreover, by explained litigants. raised the dice. as we earlier opinion, power this the preju- to dismiss with Robertson, also, United 45 F.3d States as a dice sanction for violations (10th Cir.1995). 1423, 1437-38 very exercised limited circum- In propounding separation of [¶21] stances. strict The conditions attached argument, powers State us to directs power further ensure there will Padget, (Wyo. Hilderbrand P.2d 870 exercise power unwarranted of executive 1984). In we stated: Hilderbrand the court. traditionally prosecutive decision depart- been exercised executive Imposition B. Exercise Discretion in ment, judicial attempt and an Discovery Sanction of government that au- branch exercise thority purporting to the refil- foreclose Having 24] [¶ determined the ing charge criminal of a the absence may, district court certain under circum statutory proscription constitutional or stances, dismiss criminal preju constitutionally prohibited as a violation of dice as a sanction for the State’s violation of separation powers doctrine. discovery obligation, we consider next proper the decision was quoting Faltynowicz, Id. at (citations omitted). circumstances this case. The district (Wyo.1983) P.2d regarding court’s decision sanctions for dis [¶ Hilderbrand case 22] addressed covery subject violations is to review for factual presented different situation than is abuse of discretion. Emerson case, here. In that the district court found (Wyo.1999). P.2d agree 524-25 We prosecutor contempt of court for refus- 16(d)(2), precedent federal interpreting Rule ing comply pur- court’s provides three factors for the perjury charge against sue a a former under- determining consider in appropriateness Hilderbrand, drug agent. cover P.2d at (1) aof sanction: the reasons the State de appeal, 871. On we held the statute which layed materials, producing requested in gave authority the district court to direct the cluding prosecutor whether or not the acted prosecutor with a crime someone in bad faith when it failed to with the infringed upon power the executive branch’s (2) order; extent prosecutorial and discretion to make deci- delay; as a defendant result sions. Id. 873-74. feasibility curing contrast, By Dennison, continuance. F.2d at 259- infringe upon prose district court did not weighed, those 60. Once factors are prosecute cutor’s decision to or decline to impose district court should the least severe prosecute Naple. Although dismiss will compli sanction which ensure the State’s prejudice obviously al with foreclosed the discovery responsibilities. ance with its Id. prosecutor’s option recharging of Ms. Granting Naple’s [¶25] motion mistrial, after inserting the the court was not charge against her preju- dismiss the discretionary exclusively itself into the and dice, stated, in pertinent the district court bring executive decision of whether or not to part: was, instead, charges, attempting to but en force its own rules. As we said in Hilderb- 4. The State now asks this to re- Court rand, and, prosecutorial instead, once the sim- decision consider its dismissal made, least, judicial ply been the in very branch set a At the becomes new date. Hilderbrand, En requests volved. 678 P.2d at 872. the State a dismissal without is, doubt, prejudice. Defendant, meanwhile, of court forcement rules without a asks responsibility judicial of the See prej- branch. Bil this Court to dismiss the matter with lis, Thus, light 800 P.2d at 423. the court udice the State’s continued viola- separation powers did not violate the con tions oth- of court orders this case and cept it dismissing when enforced its rules ers. of criminal cases in this dis- prosecution and au-

5. This Court has discretion trict. thority pursuant to its to dismiss case Court, generally,

supervisory power. See Michael to its 10.The role of this boiled essence, Bereh, parties to both and A. and Rebecca White is to be fair Bereh playing field. The Court Judiciary Dismiss create level Power Crimi- Juries, simply will tolerate the State’s contin- Hung Charges nal Several After others, failures, in case Review, 535, ued this and Loyola Angeles Law of [Los] put too fíne a comply with the law. Not (1996-[97]). See also State ex rel. it, just on to do would point otherwise Ausherman, Wyo. 72 P. 200 v.Mau wrong. (1902). Indeed, have other cases resulted analogous circum- dismissals experi- The district court stated its Dismissing stances. See Order prosecutor’s particular with this office ence Informar Robinson, tion, v. R. Criminal State Keith dismissing in other cases as reason District, Action No. Second Judicial preju- charges against 9, 2002). County Albany (Sept. Certainly, experience prop- that could dice. may provide some erly be considered and represented Car 6. The con- regarding the first factor for guidance has, Office, County Attorney’s bon over delayed in reasons the State sideration —the years, experienced litany of past few producing requested materials. in numerous violations court orders prosecutor’s could conduct other cases Howe, cases, v. including: State Lorraine to a determination whether the relevant (Ea Criminal Docket No. CT-2004-1528 prosecutor’s taken in bad faith. actions were kin, Presiding); Quejay T. CJ State Illinois, 400, 417, e.g., 484 U.S. Taylor 5813; Armijo, Docket No. State Patri n. 98 L.Ed.2d 798 S.Ct. Michaelis, 5804; cia Docket No. (indicating attorney’s conduct in other cases Thomas, Mack Docket No. 5902. Francis determining the willful- be relevant prosecutorial In the instances mis- in the ness of violations case and order violations in each conduct (dis- Fahie, court); before F.3d cases, of these this Court and Circuit cussing pattern violations as clearly any fur- advised prosecutor’s motivation for indicative ther violations of court orders would result produce failing to discoverable items to the in a whatever defense). However, in establish ease in which violation occurred. connection between the other cases 8. This Court does not consider this mat- case, there needs to be evidence about lightly. ter of a criminal The dismissal attorney(s) prosecuting the same whether any is serious under circumstances. matter type in- the same of violation was and/or However, the State’s conduct cases, previous there volved this Court with other others leaves policy” discovery, was an “office to withhold option ability to and with no other enforce delay simply or whether the was the result of grant but law this Court’s order repeated sloppiness egregious and prejudice. dismissal rise to the level of intentional withhold- could accuracy In an effort to ensure ing Although the court was of evidence.3 preserve integrity of fairness and to obviously to com- frustrated other failures process, criminal this Court deems ply prosecutor’s orders necessary supervisory pow- office, identify exercise whether those fail- did not ures, together er in this instance. The has left this State with the court’s admonitions that fail- warnings, Court with concerns a continued were sufficient evidence addition, good to act for In it made no ure of this Court would allow lack of faith. abuse, findings as in oppression, injustice in the to the reasons the comprehend why attorneys the at the mistrial hear- 3. This Court finds it difficult to statements of prosecutor apparently regard the was unaware of the ing, we no can make conclusions with However, report question. because the record faith. bad evidence, general the contains no other than Trooper imposed discovery violations, produce including not Green’s re- for State did fact, orally suppression non-produced stated port. In the district court of the evidence considering e.g., the mistrial motion: defense continuance. See United States and/or (10th Cir.2005) discovery Muessig, rule of and the order of this “The 427 F.3d 856 (district reason, properly applied was violated for whatever its discretion by suppressing the reason doesn’t matter.” The district undisclosed evidence but re- only fusing grant court never revisited that issue and the a mistrial as an additional sanction); 410-15, the Taylor, information the record was statements U.S. by why report counsel regarding (affirming made the S.Ct. court’ sanction of produced. prosecutor preclusion was not The indicated of defendant’s evidence for failure comply discovery was not in report obligations). the his file the failure with produce it and the to locate it to defense was district court did not determine whether the provided He prejudice by an administrative mistake. no mistrial had cured the suffered specific explanation respond of his efforts to as a of the result late disclosure of discovery request, description Trooper no Green’s statement or consider procedures sanctions, what internal followed to in- are whether additional lesser such responsive statement, produced, suppression sure all is may information the cure when the prejudice. Although and no definitive statement of the district court stated “missing” report. the option dismissing discovered Defense it had no other than with agree prosecu- explain why seemed to the prejudice, counsel it did not that so. was during Lawson, hearing, recognized characterization the we tor’s As a district fully “I stating: that there proper understand was court’s failure to consider the factors my purposeful preventing receiving determining particular the whether sanction report.” representations Counsel’s are not to an is warranted amounts abuse of discre- Lawson, sufficient establish the reason for the fail- tion. 994 P.2d produce report ure to whether the certainly [¶29] We understand the dis- prosecutor acted in bad faith. trict court’s frustration with the dis- State’s analysis covery The second factor in the “The violations. failure to prejudice by deplored.” suffered the defendant as a with a is to delay producing Lindsey, history result of State’s 725 P.2d at 655. A of discov- was, arguably, ery information.4 This factor dis- violations that failure more makes even Nevertheless, reprehensible. cussed the district court in the context of the record and granted. not, or not a mistrial should be district do point, court’s order at this not, however, regard justify It was the decision to dismiss addressed and, prejudice to whether the sanction conse- preju- should quently, violation be a dismissal with we conclude district court that, dice. The district court reasoned based abused its discretion it did so. when upon prosecu- this and other cases where remand, court, Upon the district [¶30] to comply tor had failed or- after consideration of the three set factors ders, only option was to dismiss with herein, proper forth can determine sanc- prejudice. There was no discussion or find- tion, sanctions, or combination of in this case. ings prejudice about which would be may prose- The district court determine the particular if suffered defendant disregard discovery or- cutor’s continual prejudice. was not matter dismissed with faith, good ders evidences a lack and dis- Finally, prejudice only remedy court did

[¶28] not missal with prejudice enough compliance. discuss whether gain could be severe On hand, considering cured a less such severe sanction as a other after the evidence 16(d)(2) specifically presented utilizing proper continuance. Rule delin- on remand test, may eates non-exclusive remedies the district court determine that Naple argues 16(d)(2). Consequently, 4. Ms. she does have to not Rule do not establish address we justify accept sanction her invitation remove the prejudice. generally requirement analysis. her cases cited do from our WY 124 continuance mistrial and the resultant accomplish that will the least severe sanction (Defendant), BOYLE, Appellant Bruce G. compliance with court’s prompt and full therefore, orders, is, appropri- (Plaintiff). BOYLE, Appellee R. Renee before, the have said ate. As we making those discretion broad No. 05-258. determinations, must be but that discretion Supreme Wyoming. after consid- in a reasoned fashion exercised factors, appropriate eration 29, 2006. Sept. the least severe sanction court should choose will ensure State’s which concludes discovery responsibilities.

compliance with pro- and remanded for

[V31] Reversed opinion.

ceedings with this consistent

VOIGT, C.J., opinion, dissenting files J., HILL, joins. agree every- most I

[¶32] While simply

thing majority opinion, I said in the If

would come to a different conclusion. 16(d)(2) give truly does the dis-

W.R.Cr.P. improvising a

trict court broad discretion

remedy violations the State circumstances,” just

“as it deems under the ease, coupled

then the circumstances of paragraph six the matters described order, court’s should suffice.

of the district particular reme-

The district court deemed a just

dy Even to be circumstances. did not di-

though district court’s order fac-

rectly identify and discuss the Dennison

tors, sufficiently I find that recited would decision, sufficiently

reasoned met by a

spirit Repeated violations Dennison. type

prosecutor’s constitute the of ex- office nothing for which

treme behavior short any effect.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Naple

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 29, 2006

Citation: 143 P.3d 358

Docket Number: 05-113

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.