Dwayne Robert Heath was arrested in 2017 in Waco, Texas, for the cost of harm to a toddler. He was indicted on February 15, 2017, and appointed a neighborhood lawyer named Alan Bennett. On March 13, 2017, Bennett despatched an e-mail request to the prosecutor in command of the case in search of discovery of the proof in possession of the prosecution. The whole e-mail learn: “Can I get discovery on this shopper? Trigger #217-241-C2.”
Article 39.14(a) of the Texas Code of Prison Process gives for discovery on this State. Way back to 1978, it has been the regulation that “proof willfully withheld from disclosure below a discovery order needs to be excluded from proof.”
This was a restricted type of discovery requiring protection attorneys to request particular proof from the prosecution that fell right into a slim vary of things inside the discovery statute. Protection counsel bore the burden of exhibiting that the paperwork sought had been related to discovery. After this authorized wrangling, the trial choose nonetheless loved broad discretion about whether or not to court docket order discovery of the requested gadgets.
Prosecutors routinely denied discovery or claimed they’d an open file coverage, however discovery was minimal. Protection attorneys had been usually restricted to hand-copying notes from the State’s file.
The Texas legislature monumentally modified discovery in Might of 2013 with the Michael Morton Act, codified in article 39.14(a)—a discovery modification that expanded the States’ discovery obligation to offering copies of all proof materials to any matter concerned within the case that is in possession of the State. Article 39.14 makes the State of Texas answerable for acquiring any requested doc “within the possession, custody, or management of the state or any individual below contract with the state.” “State,” as used on this statute, contains:
- Any and each political subdivision of the State.
- All businesses of the State and any political subdivision.
- Any individual or entity below contract with the State.
Moreover, the State has an affirmative responsibility to hunt all requested gadgets in order that a replica could also be offered pursuant to the protection’s request as required by Article 39.14.
What additionally modified was the elimination of the need for a “court docket order” to attain discovery—a easy request by protection counsel below the Morton Act is ample to set off discovery.
As mentioned in Watkins v. State, “On the entire, the statutory modifications broaden prison discovery for defendants, making disclosure the rule and non-disclosure the exception. Considerably, Article 39.14(h) locations upon the State a free-standing responsibility to reveal all “exculpatory, impeaching, and mitigating” proof to the protection that tends to negate guilt or cut back punishment. Our Legislature didn’t restrict the applicability of Article 39.14(h) to “materials” proof, so this responsibility to reveal is way broader than the prosecutor’s responsibility to reveal as a matter of due course of below Brady vs. Maryland…”
“Additionally, the statute requires disclosure of proof that merely “tends” to negate guilt or mitigate punishment. This echoes the definition of evidentiary relevancy. Related proof is any proof that has any tendency to make the existence of any truth of consequence to the willpower of the motion extra possible or much less possible than it could be with out the proof. Proof needn’t by itself show or disprove a selected truth to be related; it’s ample if the proof gives a small nudge towards proving or disproving some truth of consequence. Beneath Article 39.14(h), the State has an affirmative responsibility to reveal any related proof that tends to negate guilt or mitigate punishment no matter whether or not the proof is “materials” below Brady v. Maryland.”
The Morton Act additionally imposes an obligation on prosecutors to reveal discovery as quickly as practicable after receiving a well timed request from the defendant.
Nevertheless, the issue with the Morton Act modification is that it doesn’t embrace a definition for what’s “as quickly as practicable,” nor any cures for failure to adjust to the request.
That modified on June 12, 2024, when the Texas Courtroom of Prison Appeals (CCA) addressed these issues in a landmark resolution within the Dwayne Robert Heath case. The CCA held {that a} prosecutor’s responsibility to reveal exists whether or not they have information of the proof or not.
The background details of the Heath case are these: protection lawyer Bennett despatched his discovery e-mail request to the prosecutor in March 2017. The prosecutor responded to the request in July 2017. The trial date was postponed 3 times earlier than it was set on March 29, 2018. Simply days earlier than the trial was to start, the prosecutor realized whereas interviewing a possible witness on March 18, 2018, that there may be a 911 recording within the case. The prosecutor investigated and decided that such a recording was within the sheriff division’s possession. The prosecutor procured the recording on March 23, 2018, and offered it to protection counsel that similar day.
Protection counsel instantly filed a pretrial writ of habeas corpus and movement to exclude the recording as being premature withheld. The trial court docket held a listening to on the movement to suppress on the day of the fourth trial setting and simply earlier than the graduation of voir dire.
The choose granted Bennett’s movement to exclude.
The State filed an interlocutory attraction of the trial court docket’s suppression order. On the prosecutor’s request, the trial court docket ready findings of truth and conclusions of regulation.
On attraction, Bennett argued that the State was in possession of the recording as a result of the prosecution’s “possession“ included regulation enforcement and different associated businesses’ recordsdata.
Bennett conceded in his arguments that the prosecutor’s failure to provide the recording was not finished in unhealthy religion; nonetheless, he argued that that failure didn’t negate the prosecutor’s responsibility to establish the existence of the recording, and her failure to take action violated the “as quickly as practicable“ provisions of 39.14(a).
The prosecutor defended her actions by saying that the District Lawyer’s Workplace was unaware of the 911 name’s existence as a result of the police report solely referenced a “name for service” that was answered by a deputy and that she didn’t seek for the tape earlier than studying of its potential existence. Upon studying of its existence, she procured it and instantly turned it over to the protection.
The trial court docket concluded that these arguments however, the prosecutor had a selected responsibility to establish the existence of the recording and produce it to the protection. The treatment for her failure to take action was to suppress the recording as a result of the failure violated the “as quickly as practicable“ provisions of Article 39.14(a).
The CCA agreed.
In truth, the appeals court docket even indicated {that a} prosecutor’s responsibility to reveal proof entails affordable diligence to uncover proof they could not find out about.
This would require prosecutors to ascertain and preserve channels of communication with regulation enforcement to find out if they’ve any related proof of their possession.
The Heath resolution is pivotal in prison instances in Texas. It forces prosecutors to well timed, fully, and directly produce requested discovery made by protection counsel.
The Heath resolution famous, In related half, Article 39.14(a) imposes an obligation upon the State to provide discovery “as quickly as practicable after receiving a well timed request from the defendant” excluding the work product of counsel for the State.
The Courtroom held, “that gadgets within the possession, management, or custody of “the state,“ embrace gadgets within the possession of regulation enforcement. Furthermore, the statute doesn’t communicate to the prosecution’s Mind-set, nor does it include any mens rea limitation. Reasonably, the focus of the statute is on the State’s obligation and skill to reveal proof within the State’s possession, not whether or not a selected prosecutor knew that regulation enforcement had the proof in its possession. Thus, Article 39.14 may be violated by a prosecutor’s non-disclosure of proof on account of regulation enforcement’s failure to show proof over to the prosecution, even when regulation enforcement’s possession of proof is unknown to counsel for the State.”
Who’s “The State“ for Functions of Article 39.14?
“Article 39.14’s use of the phrase “state“ means precisely what one would assume it means—the “State of Texas.“ And whereas the statutory reference to the State of Texas essentially contains the prosecutor as a consultant of “the state“ simply as a reference to the “defendant“ essentially features a reference to the defendant’s consultant, by itself, the phrase “state“ refers back to the State of Texas as a celebration to the lawsuit. It’s not restricted to the prosecutor making an attempt the case…”
“This interpretation can be per Article 39.14(a)’s use of the phrase “state“ within the phrase “within the possession, custody, or management of the state, or any individual below contract with the state…“
“The extra pure studying of the statute is that the “state,“ together with regulation enforcement in addition to third-party contractors with the State akin to crime laboratories, has an obligation to disclose proof.”
“As Quickly As Practicable“ by its Plain Phrases Has No Information Requirement
Moreover, the Courtroom held, “that below Article 39.14, “the state“ means the State of Texas, which incorporates regulation enforcement businesses, and imposes an obligation upon prosecutors as representatives of “the state“ to reveal discoverable proof “as quickly as practicable,“ which means as quickly because the State within reason able to doing so, upon receiving a well timed request from the protection.”
“Consequently, we maintain that below Article 39.14, “the state“ means the State of Texas, which incorporates regulation enforcement businesses, and imposes an obligation upon prosecutors as representatives of “the state“ to reveal discoverable proof “as quickly as practicable,“ which means as quickly because the State within reason able to doing so, upon receiving a well timed request from the protection.”
Does a Trial Courtroom have the Authority to Exclude Proof for a Violation of Article 39.14?
The Courtroom then held {that a} trial court docket might exclude proof disclosed in violation of 39.14. “We agree with the court docket of appeals’ conclusion that the previous idea of ‘unhealthy religion‘ now not utilized to Article 39.14 given the “substantive change to the method for the disclosure of requested gadgets.” Because the decrease court docket defined, “[i]t is now not ample for the State to attend till it will get prepared, or when the prosecutor decides to arrange the case for trial, to then get hold of and produce correctly requested discovery.” Article 39.14(a) now comprises a timeliness requirement, and a prosecutor might inadvertently violate the statute by failing to train affordable diligence in in search of out discoverable gadgets.
Because the CCA concluded:
“Beneath Article 39.14, “the state“ means the State of Texas, not a person prosecutor or a district lawyer’s workplace. Whereas the statutorily imposed discovery obligations fall on the prosecutor because the State of Texas’ consultant in prison instances, the duty to provide materials proof extends to proof that’s within the possession of regulation enforcement businesses. As such, the prosecution might inadvertently violate Article 39.14 by failing to reveal proof that’s within the possession of regulation enforcement as a result of it has an obligation to confirm what proof is offered to it, in addition to an obligation to reveal that proof to the protection as quickly as practicable upon well timed request. Right here, the State violated its responsibility below Article 39.14 by failing to well timed disclose proof of a 911 name made by the complainant’s mom on the date of the alleged offense. Although the prosecutor was unaware of the recording when Appellee made his discovery request almost fourteen months prior and on the three separate events when the State introduced it was able to proceed to trial on this case, the State was obligated to seek out out what proof was out there to it. Beneath these circumstances, the trial court docket acted inside its discretion to exclude the 911 name based mostly on a violation of the invention statute. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court docket of appeals.”
The Heath resolution is a landmark resolution impacting discovery in Texas prison instances. It permits courts to exclude proof both obtained or disclosed in violation of the invention statutes’ “as quickly as practicable” requirement. The ruling lastly added enamel to the Michael Morton statute and can assist maintain prosecutors accountable for discovery violations and lack of due diligence in making ready their instances and disclosing proof to the protection.