Westfall v. Enright
| Citation | 643 S.W.2d 839 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 46294,D,No. 3,3,46294 |
| Parties | George R. WESTFALL, Plaintiff, v. The Honorable Richard T. ENRIGHT, Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Div.efendant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
John D. Evans, St. Louis, for plaintiff.
Dewey S. Godfrey, Jr., St. Louis, for defendant.
This original action in prohibition is against the trial judge in State v. Oggesen, a criminal action pending in St. Louis County on multiple counts of burglary and stealing, to prevent sanctions against the State for the State's witnesses' failure to answer in writing written interrogatories propounded by the criminal defendant Oggesen. We issued our preliminary order in prohibition in September, 1982. We now make that preliminary order absolute.
There is no general right of discovery in Missouri criminal cases. State v. Aubuchon, 381 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Mo.1964). Discovery that is permitted must be provided for by statute or rule of court, and is subject to such conditions as the State may fix. Id. at 812-13. Oggensen's interrogatories were exactly that--written questions like those permitted in civil actions which the witnesses were to answer in writing under oath. As neither the Missouri criminal code nor our Rules of Criminal Procedure make any provision for such interrogatories, the witnesses could properly refuse to answer them and the State cannot be sanctioned on their doing so. See: State v. Maxie, 513 S.W.2d 338, 344 (Mo.1974); State v. Cox, 352 S.W.2d 665, 673 (Mo.1962).
Oggesen contends we should uphold his interrogatories under Rule 25.12 as seeking the witnesses' depositions on "written questions." The Rule provides, in its pertinent part:
Depositions upon written questions in civil actions are covered by Rule 57.04. Among other things, the Rule provides for the questions to be answered by the witness' testimony, taken according to the procedure for oral depositions set out in Rule 57.03(d), (f), and (g). That is not the procedure defendant Oggesen seeks to employ, which belies his assertion his interrogatories are but written questions for depositions.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buemi v. Kerckhoff
... ... Common v. Darnold, 120 S.W.3d 788, 79092 (Mo.App.2003) (writ issued prohibiting imposition of discovery sanction); Westfall v. Enright, 643 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Mo.App.1982) (same). Therefore, a party wishing to challenge a trial court's imposition of sanctions can either ... ...
-
State v. Clark
... ... Absent some express statutory provision or rule of court, discovery is not permitted. Westfall v. Enright, 643 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Mo.App.1982). Defendant has cited no Missouri statute or rule authorizing a trial court to order a psychiatric ... ...
-
State ex rel. George v. Jones, 20808
... ... State v. Clark, 711 S.W.2d 885, 888 (Mo.App.1986); Westfall v. Enright, 643 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Mo.App.1982). Rules 25.01 through 25.16 prescribe what discovery is permissible and when it may be conducted ... ...
-
State ex rel. State v. Campbell, 71256
... ... Prohibition is a proper remedy for discovery orders which the trial court has no authority to issue or enforce. Westfall v. Enright, 643 S.W.2d 839, 840 (Mo.App.E.D.1982). No general right to discovery exists for criminal cases in Missouri. Id. Unless authorized by a ... ...