State v. Chemuti

Criminal defendant subpoenaed body cam footage from Town, and trial court ordered the Town to comply. The Town appealed, arguing that the defendant could not subpoena the information, but could only seek the videos by filing a petition in civil court pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132-1. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, but the Supreme Court granted discretionary review.

As pointed out by the NCAJ amicus brief, the Town’s argument hinges on the applicability N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A(g) to this case. However, it is subsection (h), not subsection (g), that applies to requests made in the context of a criminal investigation. In fact, subsection (h) specifically states that it is not subject to the requirements of subsection (g).

Not only is the Town’s statutory interpretation incorrect, but it would lead to absurd results. Requiring criminal defendants to file separate civil actions to obtain information necessary to their defense would significantly increase litigation at both the trial and appellate levels, thereby undermining judicial economy. In addition, this interpretation would raise significant constitutional issues as to defendants’ right to counsel and to exculpatory evidence. Our courts interpret statutes to avoid such absurd results and constitutional implications.