Howard v. State

• Decision Date: 31 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 1267S164,1267S164
• Citation: 244 N.E.2d 127,251 Ind. 584
• Parties: William K. HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 127

244 N.E.2d 127

251 Ind. 584

William K. HOWARD, Appellant, v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 1267S164.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 31, 1969.

Robert S. McCain, Kenneth M. Waterman, Ft. Wayne, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Richard V. Bennett, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

HUNTER, Judge.

This is an appeal by William K. Howard from a conviction, after jury trial, of murder in the first degree.Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10--3401.The appellant has been sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for life.The victim of the homicide was the appellant's wife.

In view of the disposition that we have determined must be made of this case, a lengthy narriative of the evidence will not be necessary.

Prior to the trial, appellant petitioned the trial court for leave to take the depositions of two police officers whose names were endorsed on the indictment as witnesses in the case.This petition, omitting formal parts, reads as follows

'The defendant, William K. Howard, in the above entitled cause, by counsel hereby requests leave of Court to take the depositions of Roosevelt Warren, 520 E. Brackenridge Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Jimmy Griggs, 2535 S. Hanna Street, Fort Wayne, Indiana, witnesses in the above entitled cause as shown by endorsement on the indictment in this cause, said witnesses residing within the State of Indiana.'

By the above petition, the court was informed that the reason the defendant wished to depose the two persons named therein was that they were named on the indictment as material witnesses.

In the recent case of Bernard v. State (1967), Ind., 230 N.E.2d 536, we held that after a defendant has shown that discovery is necessary to preparation of his case, it should be granted absent a more compelling showing by the state that such an order would unfairly hamper the prosecution or do a disservice to the public interest.See also, People v. Johnson(1959), 356 Mich. 619, 97 N.W.2d 739.To this extent the discretion of the trial court in ruling upon a petition by defendant for permission to discover witnesses is limited.

'The purpose of the Bernard doctrine is to insure justice and fairness in criminal proceedings, and it is axiomatic that an accused is not justly and fairly tried when his counsel is compelled to maneuver in a factual vacumm.Nor is fairness and justice enhanced when convictions are gained through surprise, or by the prosecution misleading the defense.'Johns v. State (1968), Ind., 240 N.E.2d 60, 64.

The granting of a defendant's petition to deposeprosecution witnesses can only assist in accomplishing the just disposition of criminal charge unless the state is able to show a paramount interest sufficient to shield the witnesses from questioning by the defense.Where no such paramount interest is shown, the allowance of discovery is clear recognition that a criminal prosecution is not a game but rather a system designed to discover the truth and reach a just result.

In this case, no such paramount interest was brought forth by the state, and we therefore hold that the trial court abused its discretion...