State v. Davis, 80,459
| Decision Date | 22 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 80,459,80,459 |
| Citation | 266 Kan. 638,972 P.2d 1099 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Bryce Leon DAVIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. K.S.A. 22-3212 places broader discovery in criminal proceedings within the discretion of the trial court. Trial courts are urged to exercise their discretionary powers to effect economies in time, money, and judicial and professional talents, and to permit thorough preparation for trial on both sides. The intent of the code of criminal procedure is to be effected by prosecutors, trial courts, and defense attorneys construing its provisions to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.
2. Proceedings for contempt are of two classes--criminal and civil. The precise distinction between civil and criminal contempt is not always easy to define in that a particular contempt may take on some of the qualities and aspects of either contempt depending on the facts of the case. Generally, criminal contempt proceedings are those brought to preserve the power and vindicate the dignity of the courts and to punish for disobedience of its orders. Civil contempt proceedings are those instituted to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to suits and to compel obedience to orders and decrees made for the benefit of such parties. The former are criminal and punitive in their nature, and the government, the courts, and the people are interested in their prosecution. The latter are civil, remedial, and coercive in their nature, and the parties chiefly interested in their conduct and prosecution are those individuals for whom suits were instituted to enforce private rights and remedies.
3. A prosecutor's refusal to comply with a lawful discovery order constitutes contempt of court. Sanctions imposed by a trial court for contempt of court within the course of criminal proceedings are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will be set aside on appeal only in cases where it is demonstrated that the court has abused its discretion.
4. Dismissal of criminal charges with prejudice is a very drastic sanction to impose in a criminal case and oftentimes punishes the public not the prosecutor. The dismissal of pending criminal charges for the State's commission of discovery violations are to be disfavored and reserved only for the most extreme circumstances.
5. Where there has been no showing that the defendant suffered actual prejudice as a result of a prosecutor's misconduct, and alternative means of sanctioning the prosecutor exist for the violation, dismissal of pending charges may constitute an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
6. The primary purpose of the imposition of sanctions in criminal contempt proceedings is to vindicate the authority of a court. In extreme cases where the prosecutor persists in a willful and contemptuous violation of a valid court order and no other lesser punishment will vindicate the court's dignity and authority, a punitive judgment sufficiently potent to achieve the goals of restoring the dignity and authority of the court and one that is in proportion to the contemptuous conduct may be imposed.
Joe Shepack, county attorney, argued the cause, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, was with him on the brief for appellant.
Michael S. Holland II, of Russell, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
The State of Kansas appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of all charges against the defendant, Bryce Leon Davis, as a sanction imposed by the district court, which held the prosecutor in contempt of court for failure to comply with its discovery order. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
On February 22, 1997, the defendant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving left of center. Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion for production with the district court asking that the State be ordered to produce the following documents: (1) the certification from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment on the solution used to test the defendant's breath, and (2) weekly test results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 for December, January, February, and March used to test the defendant's breath.
There is no dispute that the documents requested were relevant and subject to discovery. At the hearing, defense counsel asked that the county attorney supply the requested documents. The county attorney, however, replied that while defense counsel was more than welcome to go to the sheriff's office and inspect the logs and the certification, the county attorney would not photocopy the information and send it to defense counsel.
The following exchange then occurred:
The court then indicated that while it did not believe that the county attorney was a copy service, the request was not a burden on the State and the information was easily obtained by making a telephone call to the sheriff's office. The court then ordered that the requested information be sent within 5 days. Once again, however, the county attorney objected:
The court then reiterated its order.
The requested information was not provided by the county attorney. Instead the county attorney filed a response with the court indicating that it would not comply with the order. In his response, the county attorney argued that K.S.A. 22-3212 required only that it permit the defendant to inspect, copy, or photograph the documents, and the State was not required to make copies and send them to the defendant. The county attorney noted that he had earlier provided copies of the police report and supporting documents to the defendant as a courtesy but would not be providing the information ordered by the court. In closing, the county attorney stated that he would "endure the contempt citation and/or dismissal and take the appropriate appeal."
A contempt hearing was held November 20, 1997. At the hearing, the county attorney reiterated his position. The district court then entered the following order:
The State appeals. Our jurisdiction is based on K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(1), which allows the State to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from an order dismissing a complaint, information, or indictment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Comprehensive Health of Pp v. Kline, No. 98,747.
...contempt is the failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit or advantage of another party to the proceeding. State v. Davis, 266 Kan. 638, Syl. ¶ 2, 972 P.2d 1099 (1999); Edmiston v. First Nat'l Bank of Holcomb, 242 Kan. 13, 15, 744 P.2d 829 (1987). A proceeding in civil co......
-
State v. McIntosh
...to discovery in a criminal case. The Court of Appeals failed to note that this court specifically recognized the contrary in State v. Davis, 266 Kan. 638, Syl. ¶ 1, 972 P.2d 1099 (1999). The Davis court was faced with determining whether the district court had the authority to order the cou......
-
Alpha Medical Clinic v. Anderson
...to punish for disobedience"'" of court orders; criminal contempt tends to obstruct the administration of justice. State v. Davis, 266 Kan. 638, 645, 972 P.2d 1099 (1999). Civil contempt is failing to do something that court has ordered for the benefit of another party to the proceeding, and......
-
State v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
...class B misdemeanor. K.S.A.2014 Supp. 21–6611(b)(2) also authorizes the imposition of a fine for nonappearance. See State v. Davis, 266 Kan. 638, 645, 972 P.2d 1099 (1999) (criminal contempt proceedings are brought to preserve power and vindicate dignity of courts and to punish for disobedi......