-- the statement is within the prosecution's possession, custody, or control; and
-- the prosecuting attorney knows -- or through due diligence could know -- that the statement exists;
This summary must describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for these opinions, and the witness's qualifications.
A prosecutor may not disclose victim contact information, including the address of a victim, if the victim has requested nondisclosure. If a defendant makes a written request for discovery of the names, addresses, and statements of witnesses, the prosecuting attorney must be allowed to perpetuate the testimony of those witnesses under Rule 15.
N.D. R. Crim. P. 16
Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of January 27-28, 2005, pages 12-13; April 25, 1996, page 15; January 25-26, 1996, pages 22-23; April 27-28, 1995, pages 2-3; September 29-30, 1994, pages 7-9; April 28-29, 1994, pages 12-14; April 29-30, 1993, pages 10-11; January 28-29, 1993, pages 12-13; April 20, 1989, page 4; December 3, 1987, page 15; February 17-18, 1983, pages 5-11; November 18-19, 1982, pages 5-10; September 30-October 1, 1982, pages 3-6; April 15-16, 1982, page 1; December 7-8, 1978, pages 9-13; October 12-13, 1978, pages 3-8; September 27, 1974, page 4; October 17-20, 1972, pages 1-2; June 26-27, 1972, pages 9-14; December 11-12, 1968, pages 4-13; Fed.R.Crim.P. 16.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Rule 16 was amended, effective 9/1/1983;3/1/1990;3/1/1994;3/1/1997;3/1/2006;5/1/2017.
Prior to the adoption of this rule, discovery proceeded on an informal basis. The only requirement placed upon the prosecutor was the constitutional imperative that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to the guilt or punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
While the rule, as amended, provides greater discovery, it is intended to prescribe only the minimum amount of discovery to which the parties are entitled. It is not intended to limit the judge's discretion to order broader discovery in appropriate cases. Nor is it intended to prevent the voluntary disclosure of other evidence or material by the parties at any time.
Rule 16 was amended, effective3/1/2006, in response to the12/1/2002, revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. Subdivision (f) was adopted, effective 9/1/1983. The provisions were drawn from Rules 421 and 422, Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure (1974); Standard 11-2.1, American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed. 1980); and Fed.R.Crim.P. 16 's provision requiring disclosure of expert witness information. Subdivision (f) does not require, as did former subdivision (i), that the person whose statement is produced must first have testified on direct examination. It is intended that the listed statements be discoverable at any point in the proceedings.
Subdivision (a)(1)(A) was amended, effective3/1/1994, in response to the 1991 federal amendment. The amendment to North Dakota's rule requires the prosecution, upon written request, to disclose that portion of any written record containing the substance of any oral statement made by the defendant in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be an agent of the government. The amendment also requires the prosecution, upon written request, to disclose the substance of any oral statement made by the defendant in response to interrogation by any person then known by the defendant to be an agent of the government.
Unlike the federal rule, North Dakota's rule does not allow the government to assess whether a written record containing the substance of an oral statement, or the substance of an oral statement, is relevant. The written record containing the substance of any oral statement, or the substance of any oral statement, must be disclosed regardless of whether the prosecution considers the oral statement relevant, and regardless of whether the prosecution intends to use the oral statement.
Subparagraphs (a)(1)(E) and (b)(1)(C) were adopted, effective3/1/2006. These provisions set conditions for reciprocal disclosure by the prosecution and defendant of proposed expert witness testimony.
Subdivision (f) was adopted, effective September 1, 1983. The provisions were drawn from Rules 421 and 422, Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure (1974); Standard 11-2.1, American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed. 1980); and Fed.R.Crim.P. 16's provision requiring disclosure of expert witness information.
Subdivision (f) does not require, as did former subdivision (i), that the person whose statement is produced must first have testified on direct examination. It is intended that the listed statements be discoverable at any point in the proceedings.
Subdivision (f) was amended, effective May 1, 2017, to bar a prosecutor from disclosing contact information of a victim if the victim has requested nondisclosure under N.D. Const. Art. I, § 25(1)(e). "Victim" is defined in N.D. Const. Art. I, § 25(4).
STATUTES AFFECTED: None.
N.D.R.Crim.P. 12.1 (Notice of Alibi Defense); N.D.R.Crim.P. 17.1 (Omnibus Hearing and Pretrial Conference); N.D.R.Ev. 612 (Writing or Object Used to Refresh Memory); N.D.R.Ev. 702 (Testimony by Experts); N.D.R.Ev. 703 (Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts); N.D.R.Ev. 705 (Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion). See also: N.D.C.C. ch. 29-10.1 (Grand Jury); N.D.C.C. ch.29-10.2 (State Grand Jury).