State v. Healey
| Decision Date | 24 May 1965 |
| Citation | 210 A.2d 486,106 N.H. 308 |
| Parties | STATE v. Albert Henry HEALEY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William Maynard, Atty. Gen., and William F. Batchelder, Sp. Counsel, for the State.
Alfred Catalfo, Jr., Dover, and N. George Papademas, Lebanon, for Albert Henry Healey.
It is now well settled in this jurisdiction that the Trial Court has the inherent power in its discretion to compel discovery in a criminal case if the interests of justice so require. State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. ----, 208 A.2d 832 (decided April 13, 1965). The rulings on the motions in this case were entered by the Trial Court prior to the cited decision. The need by the defendant before trial for documents or information sought in order to insure an adequate preparation of his case for the safeguard of his essential rights has been recorgnized as a basis for the granting of discovery under proper circumstances. State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 229, 153 A.2d 403. In exercising its discretion, the Trial Court is to consider, under the circumstances of the case, the defendant's need of the discovery sought to properly defend himself and the adverse effect which such discovery might have on the proper prosecution of the offense. State v. Cook, 43 N.J. 560, 206 A.2d 359.
On June 22, 1964, at the request of the State, a Justice of the Superior Court ordered the defendant committed to the New Hampshire Hospital for observation as to his sanity under the provisions of RSA 135:17. He was later discharged and a report made to the Court that he was competent to face trial for the charges against him. Defendant's counsel filed a motion to obtain a copy of the medical reports of the Hospital pertaining to this confinement.
The State argues that these records are not discoverable because they are its work product, and because they contain information gathered from different state and local agencies. To turn over these records to the defendant, it is argued, 'would be in a sense turning over the State's brief case.' The defendant maintains that access to these records before trial is essential to the protection of his rights.
The 'work product doctrine is concerned with protecting a party's trial preparations from disclosure under the modern discovery procedures.' 62 Mich.L.Rev. 1199, 1200. Under RSA 135:17 the Court on its own motion or upon notification by either party may order such a commitment. We fail to see how the hospital records resulting therefrom can be classified as the work product of the State and nondiscoverable for that reason when the report of an autopsy made under the provisions of RSA 611:10-14 is not so classified. State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 229, 153 A.2d 403. Furthermore we are of the opinion that counsel for the defendant could, in the discretion of the Trial Court, afford the defendant the benefit of such portions of the reports and records made by the doctors or by the hospital during defendant's commitment, as may be necessary for counsel to intelligently advise as to defendant's defense and properly prepare for his trial and which will not unduly interfere with the prosecution of the case. State v. Cook, 43 N.J. 560, 206 A.2d 359. See 'Second Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure before the United States District Courts' (Rule 16(a)(2)), 34 F.R.D. 411, 421, 422 (March 1964). The Trial Court may inspect these documents, and excise or withhold from the defendant any part thereof not deemed necessary to be disclosed for the protection of the defendant's essential rights.
All of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Laux
...upon matters relating to pre-trial discovery." State v. Sorrell, 120 N.H. 472, 475, 416 A.2d 1375 (1980) ; see also State v. Healey, 106 N.H. 308, 309, 210 A.2d 486 (1965) (noting that a trial court—there the superior court—"has the inherent power in its discretion to compel discovery in a ......
-
State v. Osborne
...The defendant thus received assistance beyond the minimum that is required by statute or our constitution. See State v. Healy, 106 N.H. 308, 210 A.2d 486 (1965); State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832 (1965); State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 153 A.2d 403 The......
-
People v. Matera
... Page 776 ... 276 N.Y.S.2d 776 ... 52 Misc.2d 674 ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, ... John MATERA, Joseph Florio, William Crabbe, Thomas Matteo ... and John Franzese, Defendants ... Supreme Court, ... State v. Cook, 43 N.J. 560, 206 A.2d 359.' (State v. Healey, 106 N.H. 308, ... Page 785 ... 210 A.2d 486, 487). In an earlier case (State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832, 7 A.L.R.3d 1), ... ...
-
State v. Booton, 6863
...trial court considers defendant's need for the information and the effect disclosure will have on the prosecution. State v. Healy, 106 N.H. 308, 309, 210 A.2d 486, 488 (1965). Under this approach the defendant in this case was afforded a great amount of information. In granting most of her ......