State of Utah v. ChadwickAnnotate this Case
(Not For Official Publication)
State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Delbert Vern Chadwick,
Defendant and Appellant
Case No. 981365-CA
F I L E D
January 7, 1999 1999 UT App 004 -----
Sixth District, Richfield
The Honorable David L. Mower
Delbert Vern: Chadwick, Annabella, Appellant Pro Se
Jan Graham and Norman E. Plate, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Wilkins, Bench, and Orme.
Appellant Delbert Vern Chadwick appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of Assault by a Prisoner, a third degree felony, and of the misdemeanor offenses of Speeding, Driving Without a Valid Driver's License and Giving a False Personal Identity to a Police Officer. This case is before the court on its own motion for summary affirmance. Based upon a review of the entire record, including the trial transcript, we affirm.
The issues raised on appeal are that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction over him; (2) there was a collusive joinder of the natural person "Delbert Vern: Chadwick" and the legal fiction "DELBERT VERN CHADWICK"; and (3) the prosecution was under an obligation to produce a videotape of the alleged assault on the officer. The first two issues are wholly without merit, and the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the case.
Appellant claims the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in the form of a "field arrest videotape" of the encounter between himself and the officer. Appellant did not participate in pre-trial and trial proceedings; thus, he requested no discovery from the prosecution. Accordingly, the only obligation implicated in this case is the duty to provide all exculpatory evidence. See State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 138, 143 (Utah 1994). However, the prosecution's disclosure duty is not implicated when a defendant seeks access to nonexculpatory information. Appellant does not dispute that he was involved in a physical altercation with the officer while under arrest. Appellant was present but did not participate in the trial and did not object to the inclusion or exclusion of any evidence at trial. In this case, appellant has provided no basis on which to conclude that a videotape, if one exists, would be exculpatory. See State v. Worthen, 765 P.2d 839, 850 (Utah 1988)(finding no error where the defendant did not provide a basis for determining whether the evidence that the prosecutor could have provided was exculpatory). Under the circumstances, we find no error by the trial court in denying the post-trial motion to produce the alleged videotape.
Accordingly, we affirm the
Michael J. Wilkins, Presiding Judge
Russell W. Bench, Judge
Gregory K. Orme, Judge