 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Polston8/19/2004
ear that the court has wide discretion to fashion a remedy that is appropriate for the circumstances of each case and the sanction must fit the circumstances of that case." State v. Dennie Ray Loden, No. 03C01-9311- CR-00380, 1995 WL 23351, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 19, 1995), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1995) (citing State v. James, 688 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)); see State v. Leon Goins, No. W1999- 01681-CCA-R3-CD, 1999 WL 1531111, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Dec. 27, 1999) perm. app. denied (Tenn. 2000). However, "evidence should not be excluded except when it is shown that a party is actually prejudiced by the failure to comply with the discovery order and that the prejudice cannot be otherwise eradicated." State v. Garland, 617 S.W.2d 176, 185 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981) (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)). "The exclusionary rule should not be invoked merely to punish the state or the defendant for deliberate conduct in failing to comply with a discovery order." Id.
In this case, Detective Wright testified about what the Defendant said in their telephone conversation by referring to a typed summary. The Defendant did not learn of this summary until the trial had begun. The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by not suppressing Detective Wright's testimony about the Defendant's statement because the State violated Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(A). The Defendant further contends that he was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to suppress the testimony because he may have changed his trial strategy if he had obtained the statement prior to trial and the statement was used to impeach his credibility. The State contends that: (1) the trial court never found a discovery violation; (2) the record is insufficient to show that the State acted without"diligent good faith efforts" to disclose information; and (3) the Defendant has not shown prejudice. We agree with the Defendant.
In this case, the State intended to call Detective Wright to testify about the Defendant's involvement in the altercation at Flashbacks. In preparing for his testimony, the existence of the recorded summary of the Defendant's statement should have been known or, by the exercise of due diligence, should have become known by the State. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A). Therefore, the State violated Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(A) when it failed to produce Detective Wright's summary of the Defendant's statement prior to trial. While the trial court limited the use of the testimony concerning the Defendant's telephone conversation with Detective Wright, the trial court did not specifically find a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 violation. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to find a discovery violation under Rule 16. Having found a discovery violation, we now must determine what remedy the trial court should have granted under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the only remedy that would have prevented actual prejudice to the Defendant was to prohibit Detective Wright's testimony concerning the Defendant's telephone conversation. Detective Wright's testimony actually prejudiced the Defendant because it impeached the Defendant's credibility after he testified in his own defense, and the prejudice could not be otherwise eradicated. Garland, 617 S.W.2d at 185. Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to exclude Detective Wright's testimony about the Defendant's telephone conversation.
Having found error, we next determine whether the error is harmless. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(b) provides: "A final judgment from which relief i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|