Cole v. State, 378 Md. 42

835 A.2d 600 (2003) · Court of Appeals of Maryland · November 12, 2003 · No. No. 5, Sept. Term, 2003

Summary

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the State was required under Maryland Rule 4-263(b)(4) to disclose relevant standard operating procedures, calibration records, and proficiency-testing records concerning drug-analysis testing. The trial court improperly denied discovery and excluded the defendant’s expert testimony for lacking a sufficient factual basis caused by the withheld information. The court held that the error was not harmless, reversed the convictions, and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

  1. Maryland Rule 4-263(b)(4) requires the State, upon request, to disclose written standard operating procedures relevant to the State's drug testing, calibration records for the equipment used to analyze the substances in the defendant's case, and the testing chemist's proficiency records relating to the equipment and procedures used.
  2. In a criminal discovery dispute, requested information is relevant when it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, subject to balancing against privacy, confidentiality, privilege, burden, or other conflicting interests; the defendant need not first prove that the State's test was inaccurate or that its procedures were faulty.
  3. The State's failure to disclose the relevant laboratory materials violated Rule 4-263, the trial court abused its discretion in limiting discovery and excluding Cole's expert, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Maryland Rule 4-263 required the State to disclose, upon request, laboratory standard operating procedures relevant to cocaine testing, calibration records for the equipment used in Cole's case, and proficiency-testing records for the chemist who performed the testing.
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Cole access to that discovery and excluding his defense expert for lack of a sufficient factual basis.
  3. Whether the discovery violation and exclusion of the expert's testimony were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (23)

  • North River Ins. Co. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 343 Md. 34, 680 A.2d 480 (1996)(followed)
  • Williams v. State, 364 Md. 160, 771 A.2d 1082 (2001)(followed)
  • Collins v. State, 373 Md. 130, 816 A.2d 919 (2003)(followed)
  • Fisher v. State, 367 Md. 218, 786 A.2d 706 (2001)(followed)
  • Tharp v. State, 362 Md. 77, 763 A.2d 151 (2000)(followed)
  • Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 208 A.2d 599 (1965)(followed)
  • Commonwealth v. Brosnick, 530 Pa. 158, 607 A.2d 725 (1992)(persuasive)
  • State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1989)(persuasive)
  • McIlwain v. State, 700 So. 2d 586 (Miss. 1997)(persuasive)
  • State v. Mehl, 602 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)(persuasive)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…