Defendant Must Show Good Cause Before He is Allowed Discovery Beyond Rule 16

State v. Tanner 2011 UT App 39 (Utah Court of Appeals, February 3, 2011).

Tanner was convicted of 5 counts of possession with intent to distribute.   Defendant filed several discovery requests seeking the disclosure of the search warrant and probable cause affidavits in support of the search warrant.  The Court denied Defendant’s motion to compel.  Defendant appealed.

The trial court based its ruling on admissibility and relevance of the evidence.  The Court of Appeals found that admissibility and relevance are not the standard and therefore the ruling was in error, however, because of the overwhelming evidence against Defendant, it is harmless error.  A defendant must show that the requested evidence is necessary to the proper preparation of the defense in order to obtain discovery beyond what rule 16 demands.  In this case, because the evidence calls into question the credibility of the confidential informant, Defendant met the good cause requirement and the motion to compel should have been granted.

Full Decision available at   http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/tanner020311.pdf