State v. McDonald

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. McDonald

674 A.2d 797, 165 Vt. 545, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 13

Supreme Court of Vermont·Decided February 26, 1996·No. No. 94-476·Published

Opinion

Appellant has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, under VR.Cr.E 16.2(c), in ordering that the originals of complainant’s letters and diaries be returned to complainant and that all copies be turned over to the district court for destruction. See State v. Vincent, 156 Vt. 259, 263-64, 591 A.2d 65, 68 (1991) (trial court has broad discretion in controlling discovery).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appellant has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, under VR.Cr.E 16.2(c), in ordering that the originals of complainant’s letters and diaries be returned to complainant and that all copies be turned over to the district court for destruction. See State v. Vincent, 156 Vt. 259, 263-64, 591 A.2d 65, 68 (1991) (trial court has broad discretion in controlling discovery).

Affirmed.

State v. McDonald, 674 A.2d 797, 165 Vt. 545, 1996 Vt. LEXIS 13 (Vt. 1996).

Pincite

674 A.2d 797 (State v. McDonald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related