People v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 14 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98SA489,98SA489
• Citation: People v. Martinez, 970 P.2d 469 (Colo. 1998)
• Parties: 98 CJ C.A.R. 6078 In re: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Francisco MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Petitioner.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 469

970 P.2d 469

98 CJ C.A.R. 6078

In re: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Francisco MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Petitioner.

No. 98SA489.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

Dec. 14, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 1998.

David J. Thomas, District Attorney, Fourth Judicial District, Hal Sargent, Deputy District Attorney, Mark Randall, Deputy District Attorney, Ingrid Bakke, Deputy District Attorney, Donna Skinner Reed, Chief Appellate Deputy, Mary Malatesta, Assistant Attorney General and Special Prosecutor, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Holland, Kaplan & Pagliuca, David S. Kaplan, Denver, Colorado, Richilano & Ridley, Patrick L. Ridley, Denver, Colorado, Dean S. Neuwirth, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant-Petitioner.

Steve L. Bernard, Assistant District Attorney, Brighton, Colorado For Amicus Curiae Colorado District Attorney's Council.

H. Patrick Furman, Boulder, Colorado For Amicus Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar.

Justice KOURLIS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This matter comes before the court pursuant to C.A.R. 21. On September 29, 1998, the court issued a rule to show cause interceding in and staying the capital murder case pending against Francisco Martinez, Jr., for the limited purpose of addressing the defendant/petitioner's ¹ constitutional challenge to one provision of the statutory reciprocal discovery requirements applicable to the penalty phase of this case. The matter was at issue before the court on November 12, 1998. We now conclude that the provision of the statute at issue is facially constitutional; hence, we discharge our rule to show cause.

I.

On September 3, 1998, a jury convicted Francisco Martinez, Jr. of first-degree murder. On September 10, 1998, the trial court set the capital sentencing hearing to begin on November 10, 1998. The hearing was stayed by this court's order.

The case is proceeding under the dictates of new legislation codified at section 16-11-103, 6 C.R.S. (1998), concerning the exchange of information between the defendant and the prosecution prior to the penalty phase of a death penalty case. Specifically, on April 21, 1998, certain amendments to sections 16-11-103 became law. See ch. 137, sec. 1, § 16-11-103(3.5), 1998 Colo. Sess. Laws 379, 380. In pertinent part, section 16-11-103(3.5)(c) requires that:

The defendant shall provide the prosecuting attorney with the following information and materials no later than 20 days after the verdict is returned finding the defendant guilty of a class one felony:

(I) a list of all witnesses whom the defendant may call at the sentencing hearing, specifying for each the witness' name, address, and date of birth and the subject matter of the witness' testimony;

(II) the written and recorded statements, including any notes of those statements, of each witness whom the defendant may call at the sentencing hearing;

(III) any reports, recorded statements, and notes of any expert whom the defendant may call as a witness during the sentencing hearing, including results of physical or mental examinations and scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and

(IV) a list of books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects that the defendant may introduce at the sentencing hearing.

On September 23, 1998, twenty days after entry of the guilty verdict, the defense filed its (3.5)(c) disclosures under seal pending resolution of certain motions yet to be filed. On September 25, 1998, the defense filed a motion to declare section 16-11-103(3.5)(c) unconstitutional, asserting that application of the statute would violate the defendant's right against self-incrimination, ² his right to effective assistance of counsel, ³ and his rights to due process and equal protection under the law. ⁴

The trial court held a hearing on the motion on September 28, 1998, denied the motion, and ordered the defense to provide to the prosecution by September 30 any written and recorded statements of witnesses whom the defendant intended to call at the sentencing hearing. The trial court concluded:

[T]he way I read it, I believe it means that if you were taking -- whoever is taking the statement, made notes of what was being said, that those would be includable, but not notes of the attorneys of their impressions of what's being said. And I won't require you to give anything which you've made notes on that are your impressions of what the witness says or your impressions of how it can be used at the time of the hearing in this matter.

The defendant does not here dispute his obligation to provide the names and addresses of witnesses whom he intends to call during the sentencing hearing. What he does dispute is the need to disclose the written and recorded statements of the witnesses, including notes of those statements, that he has compiled in the course of his own investigations.

Defendant argues that the reciprocal discovery provisions of subsection (3.5)(c) will curtail defense counsel's ability to gather and put on a mitigation case by forcing the defense to reveal to the prosecution all of their investigative work product. Defendant further argues that such discovery would stifle the willingness of potential witnesses to cooperate with the defense because they will perceive that their statements may be revealed to the prosecution and become a matter of public record. Finally, defendant contends that subsection (3.5)(c) undermines the adversarial system by forcing defense counsel to turn over the fruits of its investigation "effectively making the defense lawyer a prosecutor."

II.

Our criminal justice system is based upon the profound principle that a defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and that the prosecution must offer proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. The defendant need not testify, and need offer no evidence. Within that context and consistent with the prosecutorial burden, cases and statutes around the country have long held that the prosecution must provide the defense with far-ranging access to information about the case compiled by the prosecution. See, e.g., Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); In re Amendment to Fla. Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 (Discovery), 550 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1989); State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913 (Utah 1987); State v. Blackwell, 120 Wash.2d 822, 845 P.2d 1017 (Wash.1993).

Only within the last four decades of our history has the concept of the defendant's duties of disclosure to the prosecution arisen. Such reciprocal discovery obligations have largely met with favor in the courts. For example, in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970), the United States Supreme Court upheld a statute requiring a defendant to provide advance notice of an alibi defense by reminding us that "[t]he adversary system of trial is hardly an end in itself; it is not yet a poker game in which players enjoy an absolute right always to conceal their cards until played." Id. at 82, 90 S.Ct. 1893. Similarly, in Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973), the Court concluded that reciprocal discovery "by increasing the evidence available to both parties, enhances the fairness of the adversary system." Id. at 473-74, 93 S.Ct. 2208.

As to the defendant, the courts have reasoned that reciprocal discovery requirements merely accelerate the timing of disclosures that would otherwise be made by the defendant at trial. See Williams, 399 U.S. at 85, 90 S.Ct. 1893. In short, the broad question of whether it is constitutional to impose upon the defendant in a criminal proceeding certain disclosure obligations has been answered, and answered affirmatively. See United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) (holding that the court can compel the defendant to disclose his investigator's report under certain circumstances when it would substantially enhance the search for the truth); Williams, 399 U.S. at 84-85, 90 S.Ct. 1893 (holding that a state may require defendants to provide the prosecution with advance notice of an alibi defense without violating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or the Fourteenth Amendment due process protections). In the context of an attack on the constitutionality of Crim. P. 16, our court addressed and upheld reciprocal discovery requirements in 1975. See People v. District Court, 187 Colo. 333, 531 P.2d 626 (1975). We observed that the Rule survived constitutionality scrutiny because it only accelerated the disclosure by the defendant of that which he would otherwise disclose at trial. Therefore, both the United States Supreme Court and this court have previously concluded that reciprocal discovery carries no inherent flaw.

III.

Consequently, we proceed to the limited question before us: namely, whether the statutory reciprocal discovery required of the defendant in section 16-11-103(3.5)(c) is facially unconstitutional under the state or federal constitutions. ⁵

We presume that statutes are constitutional, and we interpret them accordingly. See, e.g, People v. Thomas, 867 P.2d 880, 883 (Colo.1994); Perry Park Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Cordillera Corp., 818 P.2d 728, 732 (Colo.1991). Indeed, the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Janousek, 871 P.2d 1189, 1195 (Colo.1994). When we read subsection (3.5)(c) from that perspective, we find that the constitutional issues raised by the defendant are without merit and have been resolved largely by our decision in People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148 (Colo.1981).

Before discussing these claims, however, we clarify two matters of statutory interpretation as a predicate to reaching conclusions regarding constitutional issues. We determine that: (1) the statute extends only to those witnesses whom the...