This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was charged with crimes against a victim and sought discovery of notes and statements made by the victim to a victim advocate employed by the District Attorney's office. The District Attorney argued that these materials were protected under the work product doctrine, as the victim advocate was part of the prosecution team. The Defendant contended that the materials were subject to disclosure under Rule 5-501 of the New Mexico Rules of Criminal Procedure (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 2, 2004: The District Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel discovery of the victim advocate's notes and statements, rejecting the State's argument that the materials were protected by the work product doctrine (paras 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (District Attorney): Argued that the victim advocate was part of the prosecution team, and her notes and statements were protected under the work product doctrine. The Petitioner also contended that the district court's order improperly compelled disclosure of protected materials (paras 2, 5, 20).
- Respondent (Defendant): Asserted that Rule 5-501 required disclosure of all witness statements, including notes taken by the victim advocate, and that the work product doctrine did not override this disclosure requirement. The Defendant also argued that the district court's order was consistent with Rule 5-501 (paras 2, 5, 19).
Legal Issues
- Does the work product doctrine apply in criminal cases?
- Are victim advocates part of the prosecution team for the purposes of the work product doctrine?
- Is the district court's order consistent with the disclosure requirements of Rule 5-501?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the work product doctrine applies in criminal cases and that victim advocates are part of the prosecution team. However, it found that the district court's order was consistent with Rule 5-501 and required only the disclosure of materials defined as "statements" under the rule (paras 18-19, 24, 27).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Maes and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Work Product Doctrine in Criminal Cases: The Court held that the work product doctrine applies in criminal cases to ensure thorough preparation by counsel and promote reliable results. Opinion work product enjoys nearly absolute immunity, while ordinary work product has qualified immunity. However, materials required to be disclosed under Rule 5-501 are not protected by the doctrine (paras 11-19).
Victim Advocates as Part of the Prosecution Team: The Court concluded that victim advocates employed by the District Attorney's office are part of the prosecution team because their duties often involve close communication with victims and prosecutors, and they may share details and opinions relevant to the case. This makes their work subject to the same rules of confidentiality and disclosure as other prosecution team members (paras 20-22).
District Court's Order: The Court found that the district court's order was consistent with Rule 5-501, as it required disclosure only of documented statements by the victim that fell within the rule's definition. The Court emphasized that the rule ensures fairness and due process but does not require disclosure of undocumented statements or cryptic notes. The Court directed the district court to modify its order to exclude undocumented verbal assertions from the scope of the authorized interview (paras 23-27).
Recommendations for Rule Revision: The Court suggested that the Rules of Criminal Procedure Committee review Rule 5-501 to address concerns about the breadth of the definition of "statement" and to consider requiring that notes be signed, adopted, or approved by the witness to be discoverable (para 26).