You are on page 1of 2

DOCUMENT 26

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY,


STATE OF ALABAMA,
vs.
CAMERON HARRISON
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/20/2015 9:24 PM
05-DC-2015-004922.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
ALABAMA
JODY WISE CAMPBELL, CLERK

DC-15-4922

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FILED BY DEFENDANT


COMES NOW the State of Alabama, by and through Assistant District Attorney,
ChaLea Tisdale, and files this motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum to the Spanish Fort
Police Department filed by the Defendant in this matter. As grounds therefore, the State
would show as follows:
1.

The defense has filed the subpoena duces tecum in this case in an attempt to
circumvent the rules of discovery and law of this state with regard to discovery
by a defendant in a criminal case.

2.

The subpoena is due to be quashed as an improper method of seeking


discovery in a criminal case.

3.

Alabama courts have often said that a subpoena duces tecum is not a method
of discovery. State v. Lewis, 36 So. 3d 72, 80 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). In
Alabama, a subpoena duces tecum does not embrace[] discovery as one of its
purposesand should not be employed as a fishing expedition. State v.
Reynolds), 819 So. 2d 72 (Ala. 1999) (citing Ex parte Anniston Personal
Loans, Inc., 266 Ala. 356 (1957); Williams v. State, 383 So. 2d 547 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1979); Ex parte Darring, 242 Ala. 621 (1942).)

4.

A subpoena compels the production of evidence. It is not a means of


informational discovery, nor does it serve as an investigatory tool to enable a

DOCUMENT 26

party to examine information or to interview a witness prior to trial to ascertain


the existence of relevant evidence or testimonyThe right to compel material
pursuant to a subpoena is, therefore, limited to the compulsion of evidence
and is not a right to compel the production of documents that refer to evidence
or that provide leads that will assist in the identification of evidence or to
ascertain the existence of witnesses or evidence. Ex parte Summit Medical
Center of Montgomery, Inc., 854 So. 2d 614 (Ala. 2003).
5.

Rule 17.3 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure addresses the issuance of


subpoenas duces tecum. A LA . R U LE S C R IM . P. 17.3.

6.

The Committee Comments to Rule 17.3 state as follows: This rule is not
intended to be a discovery device because Rule 16 provides for discovery. This
rule is to be used to inspect evidence held by witnesses and to require its
production at trial or prior to trial.

WHEREFORE, the above-stated premises considered, the State prays this Honorable
Court enter an Order Quashing the subpoena duces tecum filed by the Defendant in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ ChaLea Tisdale________
CHALEA TISDALE
Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have filed this pleading with Alacourts Alafile system, which
will serve a copy electronically on Defense Counsel.
/s/: ChaLea Tisdale_____________
CHALEA TISDALE

You might also like