{ "id": 2772701, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Hon. Edwin L. FELTER, District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Felter", "decision_date": "1973-10-19", "docket_number": "No. 9813", "first_page": "619", "last_page": "621", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "85 N.M. 619" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "515 P.2d 138" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "80 N.M. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5358492 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2774496 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 L.Ed.2d 283", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 S.Ct. 1414", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "390 U.S. 1026", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6370048, 6370215, 6370735, 6369840, 6370579, 6370391 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/390/1026-02", "/us/390/1026-03", "/us/390/1026-06", "/us/390/1026-01", "/us/390/1026-05", "/us/390/1026-04" ] }, { "cite": "20 A.L.R.3d 1", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5320208 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5359708 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0710-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 343, "char_count": 5944, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3665526335987357e-07, "percentile": 0.6373906355158158 }, "sha256": "0013fce94f2a6c57d90c2df3bee0eb37e8f5ef5bfc851274f00616b99c2f43b6", "simhash": "1:ac652872f4b32899", "word_count": 996 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:26.265107+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "McMANUS, C. J., and STEPHENSON, MONTOYA and MARTINEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Hon. Edwin L. FELTER, District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nOMAN, Justice.\nAn alternative writ of prohibition was entered herein by which we commanded Respondent, a district judge, to desist and refrain from enforcing an oral order announced in a criminal case. By this order, Respondent directed Petitioner to deliver to the attorneys for the accused a copy of the transcript of the stenographically reported notes of the testimony adduced before the grand jury. The authority of a district court to enter such an order is properly a subject for determination in an original proceeding before this court. See State v. Zinn, 80 N.M. 710, 460 P.2d 240 (1969); State v. Tackett, 78 N.M. 450, 432 P.2d 415, 20 A.L.R.3d 1 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1026, 88 S.Ct. 1414, 20 L.Ed.2d 283 (1968).\nThe stenographic reporter delivered a copy of the transcript to the attorneys just prior to service of the alternative writ on Respondent. Notice of the writ was given the attorneys before they had removed the transcript from the sealed envelope in which it was enclosed when delivered to them. They properly refrained from opening the envelope, and it is now in the custody of this court.\nAfter considering the briefs and arguments presented by Petitioner and Respondent, we took the matter under advisement. We now order that the writ be made permanent.\nApproximately a week before the scheduled trial date of the criminal case, the district attorney disclosed that the State proposed to call as trial witnesses four persons who had testified before the grand jury. This disclosure, coupled with the recently issued opinion of the Court of Appeals in State v. Sparks, 85 N.M. 429, 512. P.2d 1265 (Ct.App.1973), prompted counsel for the accused to orally move for a copy of the transcript of the testimony presented to the grand jury. As indicated above, the motion was granted.\nThe facts in the Sparks case are not comparable to those in the case now before, us. In that case, an undercover agent, who had testified before the grand jury, was called as a trial witness. The cross-examination of him by defendant\u2019s attorney developed discrepancies between his testimony and the testimony of a police officer with whom he had worked. At that \u25a0 point in the proceedings, defendant sought inspection of a transcript of the grand jury testimony of the witness. The trial court denied the request and the Court of Appeals reversed. We agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals under the particular facts of that case, and agree with the statement in its opinion that \u201conce the witness has testified at the criminal trial about that which he testified before the grand jury, the accused is entitled to an order permitting examination of that portion of the witness\u2019 grand jury testimony relating to the crime for which defendant is charged.\u201d\nAttention is particularly called to the fact that the accused\u2019s examination of the grand jury testimony of the witness should be confined to matters relating to the offense with which the accused is charged and for which he is being tried, and about which the witness testified before the grand jury. We anticipate that ordinarily this will include all of the witness\u2019 testimony before the grand jury. However, we can readily conceive of cases in which the grand jury testimony of a witness will cover far more than matters relating to the offense with which the accused is charged and for which he is being tried. In those cases the examination of the grand jury testimony should be confined solely to matters relating to the offense with which the accused is charged and for which he is on trial. The reasons for making this portion of the grand jury testimony of a trial witness available for examination by the accused are set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in State v. Sparks, supra.\nWe do not, however, agree with that portion of the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the Sparks case which holds that Mascarenas v. State, 80 N.M. 537, 458 P.2d 789 (1969), modifies State v. Tackett, supra. There are differences other than that of availability between the right to examine \u201cstatements,\u201d which was the question in the Mascarenas case, and the right to examine \u201cgrand jury testimony,\u201d which was the only question in the Tackett case with which the Court of Appeals was concerned in the Sparks case. In any event, the solution to the problem of availability of \u201cgrand jury testimony\u201d is found in \u00a7 41-5-8, N.M.S.A.1953 (2nd Repl. Vol. 6, 1972), and not in any language in the Mascarenas case.\nAdmittedly language in the Mascarenas case, concerning the right of effective cross-examination of a witness, has applicability to that witness\u2019 \u201cgrand jury testimony\u201d under certain circumstances. However, we do not believe this language can properly be said to have modified the requirement announced in the Tackett case of showing a particularized need before a grand jury transcript may be made available to an accused.\nA particularized need for the grand jury testimony of the witness in State v. Sparks, supra, was clearly shown by the accused. A failure to furnish the transcript in that case would have impaired the accused\u2019s right of cross-examination, and, thus, the full exercise of his right of confrontation. In the present case we are unable to find the existence of a particularized need for the grand jury testimony before the witnesses have actually testified at trial.\nThe alternative writ heretofore issued in these proceedings should be made permanent.\nIt is so ordered.\nMcMANUS, C. J., and STEPHENSON, MONTOYA and MARTINEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "OMAN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jose Cruz Castellano, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bruce E. Kaufman, Deputy Dist. Atty., Santa Fe, for petitioner.", "Jones, Gallegos, Snead & Wertheim, John Wentworth, Santa Fe, for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "515 P.2d 138\nSTATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Hon. Edwin L. FELTER, District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, Respondent.\nNo. 9813.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 19, 1973.\nJose Cruz Castellano, Jr., Dist. Atty., Bruce E. Kaufman, Deputy Dist. Atty., Santa Fe, for petitioner.\nJones, Gallegos, Snead & Wertheim, John Wentworth, Santa Fe, for respondent." }, "file_name": "0619-01", "first_page_order": 681, "last_page_order": 683 }