STATE OF MARYLAND v. DONTE GRAHAM
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Krauser, July 27, 2017,
Discovery Violation- Remedy- Dismissal of the charges is an “extreme sanction” that “should be used sparingly, if at all,” as a remedy for a discovery violation by the State.
Facts
In 2015, Baltimore Police Department officers from the Eastern District (Officers Jones Jr., Casabona, Holliday) apprehended Graham after a hand to hand transaction in the 1800 blk of N. Port St. As they did so, Graham dropped suspected CDS to the ground. Same was recovered and determined to be cocaine.
Graham was arrested and charged in District Court with possession of CDS and attempted distribution of CDS.
Two months prior to the trial date, Graham’s attorney properly filed a request for discovery seeking Crime Lab records and documents related to the analysis of the CDS.
The State did not provide that information, apparently not realizing it had been requested. On the district court trial date, Graham prayed a jury trial. His attorney did not mention the missing discovery materials.
The new trial date in Circuit Court was set about a month out. On the last business day before trial in Circuit Court, defense counsel called the ASA and advised her of the missing discovery.
On the trial date in Circuit Court, the defense counsel raised the discovery issue with the judge. The ASA told the judge that she had just found out the materials had not been provided and would get them to counsel as soon as she could.
Without anything further, Judge Stewart Mays dismissed all charges against Graham in the case.
The State appealed, arguing that the judge wasn’t allowed to dismiss the case for a discovery violation and should have just granted a postponement.
Law from the Case
Held: The Court of Special Appeals agreed in part. It held that a trial judge does have the power to dismiss a case for a discovery violation, but that dismissal is an extreme sanction that should be used “sparingly, if at all.” The Court held that the trial judge abused her authority by dismissing the charges instead of an alternative such as granting a postponement.
Discovery – In a District Court case, Maryland Rule 4-262 requires the State to provide certain information (referred to as “discovery”) to a defendant prior to trial, “to the extent practicable”.
Discovery- District Court- Where an expert is going to be called, the State is required to provide (after a request):
• the expert’s name and address
• the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify
• the substance of the expert’s findings and opinions
• a summary of the grounds for each opinion;
• the opportunity to inspect and copy all written reports or statements made in connection with the action by the expert, including the results of any physical or mental examination, scientific test, experiment, or comparison; and
• the substance of any oral report and conclusion by the expert.
From the Case: Here, the State had been on notice of its obligation to provide the material about the Crime Lab for months, and there was no reason to think it was not “practicable” for the State to have done so. Because of this, there was a “discovery violation.”
Discovery – A judge has broad discretion to choose a sanction in response to a discovery violation, including dismissal of the charges.
Discovery – However, when imposing a sanction, a judge should choose “the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the discovery rules.”
Discovery – in exercising its discretion regarding sanctions for discovery violations, a trial court should consider:
(1) the reasons why the disclosure was not made; (2) the existence and amount of any prejudice to the opposing party;
(3) the feasibility of curing any prejudice with a continuance;
and (4) any other relevant circumstances.
From the case: “Given the State’s willingness to promptly provide the material, and the fact that the deadline for bringing the case to trial was 5 months away, a continuance was apparently a feasible remedy and would have presumptively cured any prejudice Graham suffered.” Therefore the Circuit Court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges.
Other notes:
In 2009, Rule 4-262 was rewritten to clarify that discovery in district court shall be completed prior to the hearing/trial to “the extent practicable.”
The remedy for a violation is written into the rule: a postponement.
However, must be practicable. State’s failure to provide discovery just because they didn’t check the file until the business day before trial didn’t excuse them.