State v. Davis
| Citation | 592 N.W.2d 457 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. C0-98-1572,C0-98-1572 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kenneth Lamont DAVIS, Jr., petitioner, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel a trial court to perform a discretionary act.
James T. Hankes, Chief Public Defender, Barbara Deneen, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, for appellant.
Michael A. Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, Clayton M. Robinson, Jr., St. Paul City Attorney, Jessica S. McConaughey, Assistant City Attorney, Therese A. Skarda, Assistant City Attorney, St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
On January 21, 1998, appellant, Kenneth Lamont Davis, Jr., was issued a citation for the misdemeanor offense of driving after revocation of his driver's license in violation of Minn.Stat. § 171.24 (1998). Davis was given a copy of the citation. At arraignment, Davis entered a plea of not guilty. The city attorney permitted Davis and his attorney to inspect, but not copy, the case file which included Davis' driving record and automobile registration.
Davis' attorney asked the city attorney to provide him with copies of Davis' driving record and automobile registration. The city attorney denied the request. When Davis' attorney sought an order to compel the city attorney to provide a copy of his driving record and automobile registration at no cost, 1 the trial court denied the motion on grounds that the documents requested were nondiscoverable work product.
Davis petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to grant his motion. The court of appeals denied the petition on grounds that Davis had not shown that the trial court failed to perform a nondiscretionary act. Davis now asks this court to issue the writ of mandamus. We affirm and because we conclude that a writ of mandamus should not issue, we do not reach the question of whether the trial court erred by denying Davis' discovery motion.
A writ of mandamus may not issue to control judicial discretion. See Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (1998); Baker v. Connolly Cartage Corp., 239 Minn. 72, 73, 57 N.W.2d 657, 658 (1953). In State ex rel. Gresham v. Delaney, we stated:
Mandamus will issue to compel judicial officers in the same manner and to the same extent as other public officers to perform duties with respect to which they plainly have no discretion as to the precise manner of performance and where only one course of action is open. Mandamus is not a substitute for, and cannot be used as, an appeal or writ of error. Ordinarily, where a party has an adequate remedy by appeal, a writ of mandamus should be denied. 2
213 Minn. 217, 219, 6 N.W.2d 97, 98 (1942) (italics in original); Minn.Stat. § 586.01 (1998). In ruling on discovery motions, we have stated on numerous occasions that trial courts have wide discretion. See State v. Wildenberg, 573 N.W.2d 692, 696 (Minn.1998) (citing State v. Paradee, 403 N.W.2d 640, 642 (Minn.1987)).
Discovery in misdemeanor cases is controlled by Minn. R.Crim. P. 7.03, which states:
In misdemeanor cases, without order of the court the prosecuting attorney on request of the defendant or defense counsel shall, prior to arraignment or at any time before trial, permit the defendant or defense counsel to inspect the police investigatory reports. Any other discovery shall be by consent of the parties or by motion to the court.
(Emphasis added.) The comment to Rule 7.03 states:
In those rare cases where additional discovery is considered necessary by either party [in a misdemeanor case], it shall be by consent of the parties or by motion to the court. In such cases it is expected that the parties and the court will be guided by the extensive discovery provisions of these Rules.
(Emphasis added.)
Davis argues that this language in the comment mandates that Minn. R.Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 1(3), which controls discovery in felony and gross misdemeanor cases, be followed. Rule 9.01 states:
The prosecuting attorney shall disclose and permit defense counsel to inspect and reproduce * * * documents * * * which relate to the case * * *.
Minn. R.Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 1(3). Davis argues that this provision removes any discretion the trial court otherwise would have. We disagree.
In our view, the term "guided" in the comment to Minn. R.Crim. P. 7.03 allows the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burrell, No. A03-1293.
...these codefendants to not testify on Burrell's behalf. District courts have wide discretion on discovery rulings. State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Minn.1999). However, if a criminal defendant's due process rights are violated because the state has suppressed evidence material to guilt o......
-
Mendota Golf v. City of Mendota Hgts, No. A04-206.
...particular manner in which a duty is to be performed and does not dictate how discretion is to be exercised. See, e.g., State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Minn.1999); State ex rel. S. St. Paul v. Hetherington, 240 Minn. 298, 301, 61 N.W.2d 737, 740 (1953); State ex rel. Laurisch v. Pohl, ......
-
In re Stuart
...a court to exercise its discretion, but may not be issued to control how the court exercises its judicial discretion. State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Minn.1999). The SPD identified the duty the district court failed to perform in this case as the inquiry into the liquidity of real esta......
-
State v. Yeazizw, No. A03-75 (Minn. App. 3/23/2004)
...her burden for a discriminatory-enforcement hearing. The district court has discretion in deciding a discovery motion. State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Minn. 1999). Appellant argued her need for additional discovery before the district court. In denying appellant's requests, the distric......
-
Enforcement
...Co., 731 So.2d 1037 (La.App. 1999). Minnesota: Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State by Hatch , 592 N.W.2d 847 (1999); State v. Davis , 592 N.W.2d 457 (1999). Mississippi: Burnham v. Stevens , 734 So.2d 256 (Miss.App. 1999); Mississippi Valley Gas Co. v. Estate of Walker , 725 So.2d 139 (Mis......
-
Defending and responding in general
...Co ., 731 So.2d 1037 (La.App. 1999). Minnesota : Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State by Hatch, 592 N.W.2d 847 (1999); State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457 (1999). Mississippi : Burnham v. Stevens , 734 So.2d 256 (Miss. App. 1999); Mississippi Valley Gas Co. v. Estate of Walker , 725 So.2d 139 (M......
-
Defending and Responding in General
...Co., 731 So.2d 1037 (La.App. 1999). Minnesota: Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State by Hatch , 592 N.W.2d 847 (1999); State v. Davis , 592 N.W.2d 457 (1999). Mississippi: Burnham v. Stevens , 734 So.2d 256 (Miss.App. 1999); Mississippi Valley Gas Co. v. Estate of Walker , 725 So.2d 139 (Mis......
-
Enforcement
...Co., 731 So.2d 1037 (La.App. 1999). Minnesota: Minnesota Twins Partnership v. State by Hatch , 592 N.W.2d 847 (1999); State v. Davis , 592 N.W.2d 457 (1999). Mississippi: Burnham v. Stevens , 734 So.2d 256 (Miss.App. 1999); Mississippi Valley Gas Co. v. Estate of Walker , 725 So.2d 139 (Mis......