State v. Superior Court

Decision Date13 April 1965
Parties, 7 A.L.R.3d 1 . Supreme Court of New Hampshire
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

William Maynard, Atty. Gen., Alexander J. Kalinski, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Emile R. Bussiere, County Atty., Alexander J., for the State.

Matthias J. Reynolds, John A. Graf and Robert L. Chiesa, Reynolds & Graf, Manchester, for Edward H. Coolidge, Jr.

LAMPRON, Justice.

Paragraph 7 of the motion for discovery filed by counsel for the defendant Coolidge contains a list of items alleged to be in the possession of the police or of prosecuting officials. The motion alleges that examination of these items is 'essential for the preparation of an adequate defense and to insure a fair trial.' Generally these are alleged to include guns taken from the home of the defendant, one of which is alleged in the indictments to have been used in the murder of Pamela Mason; bullets; articles of clothing of the defendant; specimens of hair taken from his body; a 'knife or sharp instrument used in the slaying'; 'bullets removed from the body of Pamela Mason'; a 1951 Pontiac car owned by the defendant, vacuum sweepings and a piece of fibre insulation taken from it or from his 1963 Chevrolet; clothing worn by Pamela Mason and other ladies' apparel specifically described therein.

The Trial Court ordered that counsel be permitted to examine all items requested in paragraph 7, with certain exceptions to be considered later in this opinion. A visual and physical inspection by counsel for the defense was ordered to be arranged with counsel for the State within ten days, and if desired an opportunity for further scientific examination by experts was to be provided, all under appropriate safeguards.

This court pointed out in State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 226, 227, 153 A.2d 403, that, in criminal cases, no right to inspection of objects or writings in advance of trial existed at common law nor has such right been conferred by statute in this jurisdiction. We stated, however, that the Trial Court 'in the exercise of reasonable discretion and to prevent injustice [had power] to require the production of specific objects or writings for inspection under appropriate safeguards and at a time appropriately close to the time of trial, if it should appear that otherwise essential rights of the respondents may be endangered or the trial unnecessarily prolonged.' Id., 229, 153 A.2d 406. We reaffirm the inherent power of our Trial Court to permit such inspections and examinations if it finds that justice so requires. This same power has been recognized in other jurisdictions. People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566, 585, 586, 305 P.2d 1; In re DiJoseph's Petition, 394 Pa. 19, 22, 145 A.2d 187; State v. Cook, 43 N.J. 560, 206 A.2d 359. See 33 F.R.D. p. 128 for a copious list of references on this subject.

We hold that the Trial Court's order for inspection and examination of articles enumerated in paragraph 7 of the motion as specified by the order was within its power to make and we see no abuse of discretion in its exercise.

Defendant's counsel also sought discovery of 'Tape recordings, written statements, and notes compiled by law enforcement authorities of questions and answers propounded to the defendant.' The Trial Court did not grant this request. The nature of the notes and recordings does not appear. We hold that notes personally compiled by law enforcement authorities in the course of their investigation, even if they include notes of conversations with the accused, constitute the work product of the State and are privileged from pretrial discovery. State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 227, 153 A.2d 403.

We hold, however, that the Trial Court had the power in its discretion if justice required to order the discovery and inspection of any written confession or statement made by the defendant, or any recording or stenographic notes of the same, whether such confession or statement was signed by the defendant or not. State v. Johnson, 28 N.J. 133, 145 A.2d 313; Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 708, 312 P.2d 698; People v. Quarles, 255 N.Y.S.2d 599. See 'Second Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure before the United States District Courts,' 34 F.R.D., pp. 421-426. If the Trial Court's denial of that part of the motion was based solely on an assumed lack of power to order such discovery, the Court should reconsider its action in the light of this opinion.

Up to this point we have been dealing, for the most part, with discovery of items belonging to the defendant now in the possession of the State and with discovery of written or recorded statements made by him. Under paragraph 7 of their motion, defendant's counsel also sought discovery of 'Autopsy slides, photographs, movies, [autopsy] reports, contemporaneous notes (both recorded and written), laboratory and chemical reports, and parts of the body of Pamela Mason and contents thereof.' This portion of the motion was also denied by the Trial Court.

Defendant's counsel were furnished with a ten-page report of the autopsy upon the body of Pamela Mason performed in compliance with the requirements of RSA 611:11-13. They were also given a copy of the certificate of death in the form required by RSA 611:16. Any photographs, movies, and photographic or specimen slides taken or made as a part of the autopsy could properly be made available to the defendant,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State v. Coolidge, 5514
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 30 Julio 1969
    ...in these cases were considered by this court in State v. Coolidge, 106 N.H. 186, 208 A.2d 322, and State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 229, 208 A.2d 832, 7 A.L.R.3d 1. In support of the exceptions transferred following the trial the defendant relies both upon the broad proposition that t......
  • State v. Eads
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 8 Abril 1969
    ...92 Idaho 124, 438 P.2d 275, 278; State ex rel. Mahoney v. Superior Court, 78 Ariz. 74, 275 P.2d 887, 890; State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832, 833, 7 A.L.R.3d 1; People v. Tribbett, 90 Ill.App.2d 296, 232 N.E.2d 523, 525; People v. Preston, 13 Misc.2d 802, 176 N.Y.S.2d 542, ......
  • Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 30 Junio 1966
    ...15 F.R.D. 55; 50 Col.L.Rev. 1026, 1063. See State ex rel. Regan v. Superior Court, 102 N.H. 224, 227, 153 A.2d 403; State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 231, 208 A.2d 832. These two grounds for denial of pre-trial discovery have different purposes and characteristics. The purpose of the a......
  • State v. Laux, 2014–595
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 22 Mayo 2015
    ...their investigation ... constitute the work product of the State and are privileged from pretrial discovery." State v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 230–31, 208 A.2d 832 (1965). The subsequent adoption of Superior Court Criminal Rule 98(A) superseded Superior Court's holding to the extent t......
  • 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