# Patrick v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · December 30, 1992 · 329 Md. 24

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764470

## Case

- **Full name:** Delmar William PATRICK, III v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** December 30, 1992
- **Citations:** 329 Md. 24; 617 A.2d 215; 1992 Md. LEXIS 198
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rodowsky
- **Judges:** Murphy, Rodowsky
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764470

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that reports of State experts who have conducted polygraph tests were discoverable and on remand allocated the burden to the State to show that the defendant was not prejudiced by prior non-disclosure

## Opinion text

RODOWSKY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The analysis by the Court of Special Appeals in Patrick v. State, 90 Md.App. 475, 490-97 , 601 A.2d 1133 (1992), is correct, in my opinion.
The provision for disclosure by the State upon request of the accused of non-exculpatory reports or statements of experts, including the result of any scientific test, came into the Maryland Rules in the revision of former Chapter 700 (Criminal Causes) on July 1, 1977. That revision was prompted by the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice. I reject the notion that this Court, the Rules Committee, or the consultants to that committee ever intended that the “scientific test” referred to in the criminal discovery rule should include a lie detector test.
In connection with the revision of former Chapter 700, a Joint Committee of the Maryland Judicial Conference and the Maryland State Bar Association was appointed (the Joint Committee). It presented to the Rules Committee its Report and Recommendations to Implement the American Bar Association’s Standards for Criminal Justice (1974) (the Report). The Joint Committee commented on then proposed Maryland Rule 728 which, without material change as to the issue at hand, became in 1977 former Rule 741.b.4 and which, in turn, was carried forward into present Rule 4-263(b)(4). The Joint Committee foresaw that the proposal would operate as follows:
“[T]he defendant may obtain the results or reports of physical or mental examinations or of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons made in connection with the particular case, including the statements of the experts who conducted them. While this item of formal discovery *39 is new to Maryland, it should not prove disruptive. The State’s Attorney already has the duty of disclosing test results that are exculpatory and has no interest in surprising the defense at trial with incriminating test results. Under present practice autopsy reports, ballistics tests and other test results covered by this Rule are generally available to the defense prior to trial. It is not intended that this Rule should affect the specific provisions in Sections 23 and 26 of Article 59 on the time of preparation and filing with the court of reports by the Department of Mental Hygiene on the defendant’s competence to stand trial and insanity at the time of the offense.”
Joint Committee, Report, ABA Standards Relating to Discovery and Procedure Before Trial 26 (1974).
Today’s decision goes well beyond the class of reports on autopsies or on ballistics tests. Thus, we now have the incongruous result that the “expert consulted by the State,” Rule 4-263(b)(4), includes a person who could not qualify in any case, civil or criminal, for the purpose of giving opinion testimony expressing the result of the “scientific test” in that person’s field of purported expertise.
Judge Karwacki has authorized me to state that he joins in the views expressed in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764470. Public record. Not legal advice.