State v. Cloutier

• Decision Date: 14 March 1973
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Joseph M. CLOUTIER.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 84

302 A.2d 84

STATE of Maine v. Joseph M. CLOUTIER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 14, 1973.

John B. Beliveau, County Atty., Thomas E. Delahanty, II, Asst. County Atty., Auburn, M. Kelly Matzen, Legal Intern, for plaintiff.

Berman, Berman & Simmons, P. A. by Jack H. Simmons, Lewiston, for defendant.

Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEBBER, WEATHERBEE, POMEROY, WERNICK, and ARCHIBALD, JJ.

WEBBER, Justice.

The defendant Cloutier was found guilty by a jury of a sale October 9, 1971 of a hallucinogenic drug, D-lysergic acid diethylamide commonly known and hereinafter referred to as LSD-25, in violation of 22 M.R.S.A., Sec. 2212-C (enacted by P.L. 1971, Ch. 487, Sec. 3 effective as emergency legislation on June 23, 1971). His appeal raises four issues for our consideration.

Motion for Chemical analysis of Drug

Defendant seasonably filed a pretrial motion which, with formal portions omitted, contained the following:

'Now comes the Defendant and states as follows:

1. The proof of the State's case in the above action depends upon the chemical analysis of the substances charged therein.

2. It is necessary to the proper preparation of the Defense that Defendant be provided with a sample of said substance and means whereby he can obtain an independent analysis of the contents.

3. Your Defendant is indigent.

4. The substances notec above are in the custody of the State, or its agents. Wherefore Defendant requests the Court order the following:

(a) That the State provide to Defendant, his attorney or agents, a sample of any substance which will be introduced into evidence in proof of the within indictment.

(b) That a reputable independent laboratory be appointed and authorized to conduct a chemical analysis of said substances, payment thereof to be made from Court funds.

(c) That payment from Court funds be authorized for travel expenses and reasonable witness fees for an independent expert witness to testify to the chemical composition of said substances.'

The motion was not accompanied by affidavit and the record is silent as to any proceedings thereon. The order of the Court was endorsed upon the original motion in these terms:

'Motion denied. Defendant permitted to have assistance of Chemist for consultation and trial purposes if he so desires at State's expense.'

We are not disposed to construe the Court's order narrowly. The defendant does not and in our view could not properly contend that the consulting chemist, whose employment by the defendant at the State's expense was authorized, could not confer with the State's chemist at the State Laboratory in Augusta, observe his facilities, methods and techniques and by other reasonable and practicable means satisfy himself as to the results of the State's analysis. What the order denied was the removal of a 'sample' of the 'substance' from the State's possession. It is precisely this denial which the defendant asserts to have been prejudicial error.

From the trial record we learn that the State took possession by alleged sale of only one tablet of LSD-25. The tests performed on this tablet required the use of 3/4 of it which was exhausted and destroyed by the procedure. This left 1/4 of the tablet in existence in the State's possession which was ultimately admitted in evidence as a state's exhibit. ¹

This is the first occasion we have had to consider the intended scope of M.R.Crim. P., Rule 16(a) dealing with 'Discovery and Inspection.' The text of that paragraph is as follows:

'Upon timely motion of a defendant and upon a showing that the items sought may be material to the preparation of his defense and that the request is reasonable, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney to permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph designated books, papers, documents, or tangible objects, which are within the possession, custody, or control of the state, including written or recorded statements or confessions made by the defendant or a co-defendant, written or recorded statements of witnesses, transcripts of the testimony of witnesses before the grand jury, and the results or reports of physical examinations and scientific tests, experiments, and comparisons. The order shall specify the time, place, and manner of making the inspection and of taking the copies or photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.' (Emphasis supplied)

The Commentary on Rule 16 in Glassman, Maine Practice, Page 133 et seq. is particularly helpful. In Sec. 16.1 it is stated, 'The basic premise behind Rule 16 is that discovery can have the same beneficial effects in criminal cases that it has in civil actions and should, therefore, be permitted. It can eliminate concealment and surprise; thereby destroying the 'sporting' aspects of a criminal trial. * * * It can eliminate any imbalance which exists between the parties as to the means and ability to secure evidence.' We are satisfied that the Rule should be liberally interpreted and applied. There are, however, many practical problems which can arise and which must be dealt with on a case by case basis, and a policy of liberal application does not mean that every specific discovery request made by defendants must or should be granted. The Rule wisely imposes an initial duty on the defendant when his request is lodged. Sec. 16.2 describes that duty in these terms:

'The defendant must show that the items sought may be material to the preparation of his defense and that the request is reasonable. This requirement precludes a fishing expedition by the defense into the prosecution file, and requires the defendant to show necessity for the inspection. Something more than a bare allegation by the defendant or his counsel that the items are material. and the request is reasonable will be required. ² * * * Once the necessity has been shown, if the request is reasonable, the court must order the prosecuting attorney to permit the inspection. It is not a matter of discretion.

The order of the court shall specify the time, place and manner of making the inspection * * *. The court may in addition impose such conditions and terms as are just.' (Emphasis supplied)

It should be noted that Rule 16(a) does not expressly provide for examination or analysis by an expert. We are in accord, however, with the conclusion reached in Sec. 16.3 wherein it is stated:

'While not express, implicit in Rule 16(a) is the right of the defendant to have such items examined by an expert. Thus, if a gun is material, the defendant should have the right to have a ballistics expert examine the gun and make such tests as may be necessary under appropriate safeguards. In such cases, the order of the court permitting discovery should impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the evidence.' (Emphasis supplied)

The illustration in the Commentary involving the examination of a gun can be expanded. It is not ordinary very difficult to devise means by which a gun can be examined by defendant's expert 'under appropriate safeguards' which will serve to 'protect the evidence.' After inspection the gun will be returned intact to the State to be used in evidence. A very different practical problem is posed for the Court's resolution when the State has in its possession as evidence a very small quantity of a substance which will be destroyed, exhausted, substantially diminished or chemically altered by chemical analysis. With the great increase in cases involving the unlawful sale or possession of drugs, this becomes a matter of great importance. Obviously, what is 'reasonable' in such cases will vary markedly from case to case. So also will the nature of the court orders if the court is to preserve a fair and just balance as between the legitimate interests of the defendant and the practical necessity of protecting and preserving the State's evidence.

There is a paucity of precedent in other jurisdictions dealing with the release of State's evidende in the form of 'hard' drgus for analysis by defendant's chemist. Moreover, we are satisfied that each case must necessarily test upon its own facts, particularly with respect to reasonableness of the specific request and the safeguards which may property be imposed by the Court.

In Jackson v. State (1971-Miss.) 243 So.2d 396 the State had in its possession 12 boxes of matchbox size 'filled' with marijuana. The Court, acting not under a Rule but pursuant to its inherent power to provide 'due process' and 'fair trial,' held the refusal of the trial court to make a portion of the substance available to the defendant to be an abuse of discretion. Obviously, the problem facing the Mississippi Court was minimized by the quantity of marijuana available for testing. We do not think that it necessarily follows that the Court would have reached the same result it if had been dealing with a relatively minute quantity of LSD-25 or that the Court would have hesitated to impose a rule of reasonableness in judging the merits of a specific request.

Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 785, 17 L.Ed.2d 690 does not address itself to our problem. There is in that case no suggestion that the petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus had requested and been denied an opportunity to have a chemical analysis of stains on a pair of shorts prior to trial. Such opportunity was granted prior to the habeas corpus hearing and the stains were found to be paint rather than blood. Relief was afforded to the petitioner on the ground that the prosecutor knew the stains were caused by paint but unfairly presented them as bloodstains at trial, thus unconstitutionally tainting the conviction. In our view, considering the problems of safe-guarded...