State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, No. 65061

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtGUNN; RENDLEN, C.J., WELLIVER, HIGGINS, BLACKMAR, DONNELLY, JJ., and TURNAGE; BILLINGS
Citation660 S.W.2d 699
PartiesSTATE ex rel. Doris RICHARDSON, Relator, v. Hon. Alvin RANDALL, Judge, Jackson County Circuit Court, Respondent.
Decision Date22 November 1983
Docket NumberNo. 65061

Page 699

660 S.W.2d 699
STATE ex rel. Doris RICHARDSON, Relator,
v.
Hon. Alvin RANDALL, Judge, Jackson County Circuit Court, Respondent.
No. 65061.
Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc.
Nov. 22, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1983.

Page 700

James R. Wyrsch, Mary Beth Gardner, Kansas City, for relator.

Robert Frager, Asst. Pros. Atty., Albert A. Riederer, Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.

GUNN, Judge.

Relator seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent having to disclose the name of a handwriting expert retained by her or her counsel for her defense against forgery charges. The respondent trial court ordered disclosure of the expert's name and address. Relator's efforts for relief have brought her to this Court which has issued a preliminary rule in prohibition.

The issue is whether a criminal defendant must divulge the name and address of an expert with whom she has consulted but does not intend to use at trial. Lying in the heart of this case is Rule 25.06(A) and the reasonableness of the state's request to disclose.

We make our preliminary rule in prohibition absolute.

Relator is the critical subject of forgery charges pending in respondent's trial court in Jackson County in a case styled "State of Missouri v. Richardson." For the purpose of this proceeding, the state has complied with the provisions of Rule 25.03 on relator's request for disclosure of material and information designated, including the names of handwriting and fingerprint experts to be called by the state and checks and money orders presumably pertinent to the prosecution.

The state has sought reciprocal treatment by asking relator to disclose the name of any expert employed for her defense to review any documents alleged to be forged. Relator has refused to provide the name of her expert or state whether there has been a review of the alleged forged documents.

Pursuant to Rule 25.06 the state has filed a motion with the respondent trial court seeking an order to compel the relator to disclose the name of any expert retained by her and the results of any tests or comparisons made. Relator's response is that she does not intend to call any expert on her behalf and that all discovery obtained by her purported expert was privileged and non-discoverable, referring to Rule 25.05.

The respondent trial judge has indicated his intention to sustain the motion to compel disclosure, and after failing to obtain relief in the Western District of the Court of Appeals, relator has brought the matter to this Court.

Relator's dilemma is manifest. She or her counsel, or both, have apparently consulted a handwriting expert. The results of that consultation have not been disclosed, but relator has announced that she does not intend to call any expert on her behalf. The state does not attribute any bad faith to her in this regard and accepts the fact that she will not call the expert to testify in her behalf. 1 But if relator is required to reveal the name of the handwriting expert with whom she has consulted--and realistically assuming that the expert's findings are unfavorable to her--it would be devastating to her case for the state to reach out and use that expert against her. The relator would with her own efforts provide the state with the evidence to demolish her.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • State ex rel. In Interest of R.P. v. Rosen, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 20, 1998
    ...is not made available to respond to a trial court's order.' " Chassaing, 887 S.W.2d at 577, quoting, State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). This will occur if "there is an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review by ......
  • State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, No. 49752
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 21, 1985
    ...peculiarily limited situations ... in which absolute irreparable harm may come to a litigant...." State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). Moreover, I believe State ex rel. General Electric Co. v. Gaertner, 666 S.W.2d 764 (Mo. banc 1984) implicitly confirms ......
  • State ex rel. Chassaing v. Mummert, No. 76649
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 22, 1994
    ...if some spirit of justifiable relief is not made available to respond to a trial court's order." State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). Prohibition will lie when there is an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review b......
  • Danaher v. Smith, No. 35046
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 21, 1984
    ...of the court, State ex rel. Collins v. Donelson, 557 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1977). See also State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699 (Mo.1983), where the Court, after State ex rel. Morasch v. Kimberlin, 654 S.W.2d 889 (Mo.1983) (en banc), issued a writ prohibiting the judge from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • State ex rel. In Interest of R.P. v. Rosen, No. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 20, 1998
    ...is not made available to respond to a trial court's order.' " Chassaing, 887 S.W.2d at 577, quoting, State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). This will occur if "there is an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review by ......
  • State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, No. 49752
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 21, 1985
    ...peculiarily limited situations ... in which absolute irreparable harm may come to a litigant...." State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). Moreover, I believe State ex rel. General Electric Co. v. Gaertner, 666 S.W.2d 764 (Mo. banc 1984) implicitly confirms ......
  • State ex rel. Chassaing v. Mummert, No. 76649
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 22, 1994
    ...if some spirit of justifiable relief is not made available to respond to a trial court's order." State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Mo. banc 1983). Prohibition will lie when there is an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review b......
  • Danaher v. Smith, No. 35046
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 21, 1984
    ...of the court, State ex rel. Collins v. Donelson, 557 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App.1977). See also State ex rel. Richardson v. Randall, 660 S.W.2d 699 (Mo.1983), where the Court, after State ex rel. Morasch v. Kimberlin, 654 S.W.2d 889 (Mo.1983) (en banc), issued a writ prohibiting the judge from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT