The State of Oklahoma v Daren Levi Geyer

S-2011-543

Filed: Apr. 6, 2012

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Daren Levi Geyer appealed his conviction for a crime in Oklahoma. The State of Oklahoma, which was the appellant, disagreed with the judge's decision to not allow certain evidence and to impose penalties for not following discovery rules. The court found that the State did not follow these rules correctly and decided not to change the judge's decision. The judges all agreed with the outcome. No judge dissented.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Cleveland County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2012), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing sanctions on the State for Discovery Code violations?
• Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing a jury instruction as a sanction for a discovery code violation without a finding of bad faith on the part of the State?

Findings

• the trial court did not err in finding the State willfully violated its discovery order
• the trial court did not err in imposing sanctions for the State's non-compliance
• the court has no authority for interlocutory review of a proposed jury instruction

S-2011-543

Apr. 6, 2012

The State of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Daren Levi Geyer

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE:

The State of Oklahoma, Appellant, appeals the order of the Honorable Michael D. Tupper, Special Judge, suppressing evidence in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CM-2011-375. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053.1(5).

The State raises two propositions of error in this appeal:

1. The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions on the State for Discovery Code violations because the State had not violated the Discovery Code;
2. Trial court abused his discretion in allowing an instruction to be given to the jury as a sanction for a discovery code violation, where no bad faith was found on the part of the State.

This Court reviews the imposition of sanctions based on a party’s violation of the Criminal Discovery Code for an abuse of discretion. State v. Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, IT 7, 875 P.2d 431, 432. We have consistently defined an abuse of discretion as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Sanchez v. State, 2009 OK CR 31, 223 P.3d 980, 1001. We find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its finding that the State willfully violated its discovery order, or the imposition of sanctions for the State’s non-compliance. 22 O.S.2011, § 2002(E)(2); Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, I 6, 875 P.2d at 432. Proposition One is denied.

In Proposition Two, the State complains that the proposed negative inference instruction of the district court is erroneous. This Court has long held that the statute governing State appeals expressly restricts the state’s right of appeal to the classes of questions therein enumerated. Oklahoma U. Stone, 56 Okl.Cr. 239, 37 P.2d 320 (1934). The statutes governing State appeals provide no authority for this Court’s interlocutory review of a proposed jury instruction. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053. 1. Proposition Two is denied.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Cleveland County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2012), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. TUPPER, SPECIAL JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL

KEITH J. NEDWICK
104 E. EUFAULA
NORMAN, OK 73069
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

REBECCA BRINK
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
201 S. JONES, STE. 300
NORMAN, OK 73069
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

KEITH J. NEDWICK
104 E. EUFAULA
NORMAN, OK 73069
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

GREG MASHBURN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
201 S. JONES, STE. 300
NORMAN, OK 73069
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE

OPINION BY LEWIS, V.P.J.
A. JOHNSON, P.J.: Concurs
LUMPKIN, J.: Concurs
C. JOHNSON, J.: Specially Concurs
SMITH, J.: Concurs

C. JOHNSON, JUDGE, SPECIALLY CONCURRING:

I concur with the reasoning and holding of the majority opinion. I write separately to underscore that the discovery process is as important in criminal cases as it is in civil ones. When fair play replaces trial by ambush, the parties and the public are better served. A trial is a time-consuming, expensive process. The more information the parties have, the more efficiently they can resolve the litigation between them. Discovery helps the parties determine which issues can reasonably be disputed. Advance knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent’s evidence can streamline the trial process, and in some cases make a trial unnecessary. This Court’s decision in Allen U. District Court of Washington County, 1990 OK CR 83, 803 P.2d 1164, represented a sea change in our State with regard to the rights and obligations of both prosecutors and criminal defendants regarding pretrial disclosure of information to each other. In Allen, this Court fashioned procedures to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to obtain relevant, discoverable information from their opponent. Those procedures gave district judges broad authority to impose sanctions necessary to ensure compliance with a discovery order, and to punish violations thereof. The Legislature adopted and expanded upon these procedures by enacting the Oklahoma Criminal Discovery Code, 22 O.S. § 2001 et seq., just a few years later. As a result, prosecutors and defense attorneys now know what kind of information they will most likely be required to disclose to the other side. They are on notice and under a continuing duty to preserve such evidence, even before a discovery order has been issued. In this case, the district court concluded that the State should have taken steps to preserve potentially discoverable evidence, and the court imposed sanctions on the State for failing to do so. What is an appropriate discovery sanction is a matter within the district court’s discretion, to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But rules have little meaning if there is no means or will to enforce them. Common sense dictates that the more severe the sanction, the more likely the problem will be remedied in future cases. While the district court’s sanctions might seem harsh to some, it is safe to say that the State’s omissions in this case are unlikely to be repeated.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053.1(5).
2. State v. Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, IT 7, 875 P.2d 431, 432.
3. Sanchez v. State, 2009 OK CR 31, 223 P.3d 980, 1001.
4. 22 O.S.2011, § 2002(E)(2); Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, I 6, 875 P.2d at 432.
5. Oklahoma U. Stone, 56 Okl.Cr. 239, 37 P.2d 320 (1934).
6. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053.
7. Allen U. District Court of Washington County, 1990 OK CR 83, 803 P.2d 1164.
8. 22 O.S. § 2001 et seq.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053.1 - Appeals by the state
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 2002 - Discovery and inspection in criminal cases
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 2001 - Oklahoma Criminal Discovery Code

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• State v. Lefebure, 1994 OK CR 38, I 7, 875 P.2d 431, 432
• Sanchez v. State, 2009 OK CR 31, 223 P.3d 980, 1001
• Oklahoma U. Stone, 56 Okl.Cr. 239, 37 P.2d 320 (1934)
• Allen U. District Court of Washington County, 1990 OK CR 83, 803 P.2d 1164