 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
hat the trial court erred in ordering the disclosure of information regarding his mental evaluation. Prior to trial, the appellant filed notice pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2 that he intended to present expert testimony as to a mental condition of the appellant which would relate to the issue of guilt. The State filed a response asking for the name and qualifications of the proposed expert and also requested a summary of the expert's testimony. The appellant responded that the State was not entitled to this information because he had not sought reciprocal discovery pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and that Rule 12.2 does not require such disclosure. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court concluded that if evidence was to be presented as to the mental condition of the appellant, the appellant should provide the State with the name, address, and qualifications of the expert witness, as well as a copy of the expert's report. The appellant argues that the trial court erred in this ruling. The State disagrees, noting that no expert testimony was presented at trial as to the appellant's mental condition.
It is unnecessary for us to determine whether the trial court erred in its interpretation of Rules 12.2 and 16, as well as their interplay. The appellant does not allege or attempt to show how this ruling had any effect on the trial. Accordingly, we conclude that even if the court erred in this ruling, the error was harmless.
D. Pretrial Subpoena of Victim's Medical Records
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a pretrial subpoena duces tecum of the victim's medical records. Prior to the trial, the appellant's counsel sought to have subpoenas issued to all hospitals in Washington and Sullivan Counties, seeking medical records of the victim contending that the records were necessary to learn of his prior violent behavior. Following a hearing, the court declined to issue the subpoenas requested but agreed to issue one for a 1998 incident, of which the defense was aware, involving the victim. At a later hearing, after the State advised it had obtained certain of the victim's medical records, the State agreed to provide the defense with records that might be exculpatory and furnished medical records as to three times the victim had received medical treatment. Relying on the holding in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S.Ct. 989 (1987), the appellant argues that the court erred in not allowing subpoenas to be served to all hospitals in the two-county area.
The defendant in Ritchie had been charged with various sexual offenses against his minor daughter, and he sought to obtain confidential records from Children and Youth Services, a state agency, as to its records on the pending charges as well as earlier complaints of abuse. The Supreme Court ruled that defense counsel was not entitled to examine the records but that the trial court should make an in camera inspection of them to ascertain which were relevant and should be supplied to the defense. Id. at 61, 107 S.Ct. at 1003. By contrast, in the instant case, the appellant argues that his conviction should be reversed because the trial court did not allow him to seek records which may or may not exist. We note that at trial the appellant did not utilize the medical records he had received as to three incidents involving the victim. We disagree with the appellant's contention that the holding in Ritchie provides authority for the appellant to receive these records.
F. Instruction on State's Duty to Preserve Evidence
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the St
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|