Maples v. State3/31/1999
ssibility of DNA evidence, that court held:
"DNA evidence is discoverable, at least by the defendant. The defendant's fair trial and due process rights, Art. I, §6, Alabama Constitution, as well as Rule 16.1, A.R.Crim.P., clearly require that the prosecution allow the defendant access to the DNA evidence. See also [State v.] Schwartz, [447 N.W.2d 422] 427-28 [(Minn. 1989)]. Discovery by the State of DNA evidence in the possession of the defendant should be conducted in accordance with Rule 16.2, A.R.Crim.P.
"To produce uniformly sufficient information to allow a proper, well-informed determination of the admissibility of DNA evidence and to produce uniformity in DNA evidentiary hearings, we further suggest the following guidelines, which we take substantially from [People v.] Castro, 144 Misc.2d at 978-79, 545 N.Y.S.2d at 999 [(Sup. Ct. 1989)]:
"1. The proponent of the DNA evidence, whether defense or prosecution, should give discovery to the adversary, which should include, upon request: (1) Copies of autorads, with the opportunity to examine the originals. (2) Copies of laboratory books. (3) Copies of quality control tests run on material utilized. (4) Copies of reports by the testing laboratory issued to the proponent. (5) A written report by the testing laboratory setting forth the method used to declare a match or non-match, with actual size measurements, and mean or average size measurement, if applicable, together with standard deviation used. (6) A statement setting forth observed contaminants, the reasons therefor, and tests performed to determine the origin and the effects thereof. (7) If the sample is degraded, a statement setting forth the tests performed and the results thereof. (8) A statement setting forth any other observed defects or laboratory errors, the reasons therefor and the effects thereof. (9) Chain of custody documents. (10) A statement by the testing lab, setting forth the method used to calculate the allele frequency in the relevant population. (11) A copy of the data pool for each loci examined. (12) A certification by the testing lab that the same rule used to declare a match was used to determine the allele frequency in the population. (Note that the discovery provisions in (10), (11), and (12) specifically address evidence of DNA population frequency statistics.)" 586 So.2d at 255 (emphasis added).
However, "' here is no general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases, and Brady did not create one.' Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct. 837, 846, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977)." McMullin v. State, 442 So.2d 155, 157 (Ala. Cr. App. 1983). Therefore, as we explained in Moon v. State, 460 So.2d 287 (Ala. Cr. App. 1984), discovery requests should be specific.
"The third issue raised is whether or not the trial court committed error when it refused to grant appellant's request for production and disclosure. A portion of that request included the following:
"'2. (a) Any and all statements of any other person made in connection with the investigation of this case and which implicates the Defendant.
"'(b) Any and all notes, memoranda or reports relating to such statements.'
"Specifically, Moon claims it was error not to provide him with a copy of a statement made by Donald Bryant. ... We further note, as did the State in brief, that there is no general constitutional right to discovery by a defendant in a criminal case. Bass v. State, 417 So.2d 582 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). Appellant's request for production was not specific; as this court has pointed out in the past, a motion for discovery should not be a mere 'fishing expedition', Giddens v. State, 333 So.2d 615 (Ala. Cr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|