Opinion
No. 26632
Decided January 6, 1975.
Original proceeding in which district attorney petitioned Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent trial court from enforcing an order which directed him to provide defense counsel with names of witnesses he expected to call at a preliminary hearing, together with copies of any relevant written or recorded statements. Rule to show cause issued.
Rule Discharged
1. DISCOVERY — Names of Witnesses — District Attorney — Call — Preliminary Hearing — Statements — Defendant — Proper. In prosecution for aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, defendants were entitled to discovery of the names of the witnesses which district attorney expected to call at preliminary hearing, together with copies of any relevant written or recorded statements.
2. Criminal — Limited — Rules. Crim. P. 16, as amended, contemplates limited discovery prior to the preliminary hearing, but is not designed to convert the preliminary hearing into a mini trial.
3. Criminal — Scope — Limit — Witnesses — Preliminary Hearing — Relevant Statements — Rules. Crim. P. 16, as amended, limits the scope of discovery to those witnesses who will be called at the preliminary hearing and the relevant statements which those witnesses may have provided to the district attorney.
4. Criminal — Wide Open — Intent — Negative — Rules. It was not the intention of the Supreme Court in amending Crim. P. 16 to provide wide-open discovery prior to the preliminary hearing.
5. Criminal — Advance Notice — Witnesses — Alleviate — Gaming Aspects — Truth. The right to advance notice of the witnesses who will be called by the district attorney and the production of their prior statements tends to alleviate the gaming aspects of a criminal trial and makes the search for truth meaningful.
6. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Discovery — Amendments — Change — Purpose — Preliminary Hearing — Negative — Rules. The amendments to Crim. P. 16 were not, and are not intended to convert, expand, or change the purpose of the preliminary hearing.
7. Preliminary Hearing — Sole Purpose — Probable Cause — Accused — Committed Crime. The sole purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether probable cause exists to show that an accused committed a particular crime.
Original Proceeding
Dale Tooley, District Attorney, O. Otto Moore, Assistant, Brooke Wunnicke, Chief Appellate Deputy, for petitioner.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr. Chief Deputy, Alvin D. Lichtenstein, Deputy, for respondent.
The district attorney, in the original proceeding, has petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from enforcing an order which directed him to provide defense counsel with the names of the witnesses he expected to call at a preliminary hearing, together with copies of any relevant written or recorded statements. We issued a rule to show cause and now discharge the rule.
Tyrone P. Walton and a co-defendant were charged with aggravated robbery (1971 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-4-302), and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery (1971 Perm Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-2-201). Prior to the preliminary hearing, defense counsel filed a motion for discovery which was limited to the items set forth in Crim. P. 16 I(a)(1)(I). The applicable portions of Rule 16 I provide:
"(a) Prosecutor's Obligations.
"(1) [T]he prosecuting attorney upon request of the defense counsel shall disclose to defense counsel the following material and information which is within the possession or control of the prosecuting attorney:
"(I) The names and addresses of persons whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call as witnesses at the hearing or trial, together with their relevant written or recorded statements;"
The county court denied discovery on the basis of our decision in People v. Quinn, 11 183 Colo. 245, 516 P.2d 420 (1973).
[1] Thereafter, the district court, at the instance of defense counsel, issued a rule to show cause, conducted a hearing, made the rule absolute and ordered the limited discovery which was requested. The district court concluded that Quinn was not dispositive of the issue because our discovery rule was subsequently amended and that Crim. P. 16, as amended, clearly grants defense counsel the right to obtain the names of witnesses and any statements which they might have given prior to the preliminary hearing. We agree.
[2,3] Subsequent to our decision in Quinn, Crim P. 16 was amended and now contains unequivocal language which grants the discovery rights sought by defense counsel. Crim. P. 16, as amended, contemplates limited discovery prior to the preliminary hearing, but is not designed to convert the preliminary hearing into a mini trial. The scope of discovery prior to the preliminary hearing is specifically limited by Crim. P. 16, as amended. The provisions in Crim. P. 16, as amended, which we are asked to construe, limit the scope of discovery to those witnesses who will be called at the preliminary hearing and the relevant statements which those witnesses may have provided to the district attorney.
[4] It was not the intention of this court in amending Crim. P. 16 to provide for wide-open discovery prior to the preliminary hearing. People v. Quinn, 183 Colo. 245, 516 P.2d 420 (1973).
[5] Crim. P. 16 I, as amended, closely parallels the delineation of the prosecutor's obligations which are set forth in § 2.1 of the ABA Standards Relating to Discovery and Procedure Before Trial. The right to advance notice of the witnesses who will be called by the district attorney and the production of their prior statements tends to alleviate the gaming aspects of a criminal trial and make the search for truth meaningful. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348, 89 S.Ct. 528, 21 L.Ed.2d 537 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1959).
[6,7] The amendments to Crim. P. 16 were not, and are not, intended to convert, expand, or change the purpose of the preliminary hearing. The sole purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether probable cause exists to show that an accused committed a particular crime. People ex rel. Farina v. District Court, 185 Colo. 118, 522 P.2d 589 (1974); People v. Quinn, 183 Colo. 245, 516 P.2d 420 (1973).
Accordingly, the rule is discharged.
MR. JUSTICE GROVES does not participate.