Utah Supreme Court
Must prosecutors obtain third-party records for criminal defendants under Rule 16(a)? State v. Pliego Explained
Summary
Defendant charged with aggravated sexual assault sought production of the victim’s mental health records from ARTEC and records from state agencies DFS and CPS. The trial court denied the discovery motion for lack of good cause, and defendant appealed the interlocutory order.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In State v. Pliego, the defendant was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a sixteen-year-old victim who had been residing at ARTEC, a nonprofit organization for teenage behavioral problems. Following the alleged assault, the victim delayed reporting for nearly two months. During pretrial proceedings, Pliego moved for court orders requiring the prosecution to obtain and produce the victim’s mental health records from ARTEC and records from the Division of Family Services (DFS) and Child Protective Services (CPS). The trial court denied the motion, finding no good cause shown.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary issues: whether Rule 16(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure required the prosecutor to obtain and produce third-party records not in the state’s possession, and whether denial of such discovery violated the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rule 16(a) requires prosecutors to disclose only materials “of which he has knowledge.” The court emphasized that prosecutors are not required to “make an investigation on behalf of the defendant” or “turn over every stone” searching for exculpatory evidence. The court distinguished this case from State v. Mickelson, noting that the prosecutor had no greater access to the sought records than the defendant himself. Importantly, the court rejected the broad federal rule from United States v. Perdomo that would deem prosecutors to possess all materials held by “some arm of the state,” finding such a requirement would place a “herculean burden” on prosecutors.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies the limits of prosecutorial discovery obligations under Rule 16(a). Criminal defense attorneys must directly subpoena third-party records under Rule 14(b) rather than seeking court orders compelling prosecutors to obtain such materials. The ruling protects prosecutors from being placed in the untenable position of arguing against privilege claims that may conflict with state interests while establishing clear procedural requirements for accessing third-party records in criminal cases.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Pliego
Citation
1999 UT 8
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970289
Date Decided
January 29, 1999
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Rule 16(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require prosecutors to obtain and produce records they do not possess or have knowledge of, even when held by state agencies.
Standard of Review
The opinion does not explicitly state a standard of review for the discovery ruling
Practice Tip
Criminal defendants should subpoena third-party records directly under Rule 14(b) rather than seeking court orders requiring prosecutors to obtain records they do not possess.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.