## Facts

- A defendant was indicted in Bexar County, Texas for aggravated sexual assault of a minor.
- During a child-protective-services investigation, the defendant gave a statement to the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS), which later came into the district attorney’s criminal file.
- Private counsel for the minor complainant and the complainant’s parents sought disclosure of materials in the prosecutor’s file, including the DHS statement, to assess potential civil litigation and to consider whether to seek HIV/AIDS testing of the defendant.
- The criminal district judge ordered the State to produce the defendant’s DHS statement to the complainant’s attorney.
- The State sought mandamus relief because it lacked an adequate appellate remedy from the interlocutory discovery order.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas constitutional or statutory victims’ rights provisions give a crime victim (or the victim’s attorney) a right to obtain discovery from the prosecutor’s file in a pending criminal case.
2. Whether a criminal trial court has authority to order such disclosure at the request of a non-party to the criminal prosecution.
3. Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to correct an unauthorized criminal discovery order compelling production from the State’s file.

## Decision

- The court of appeals conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial judge to vacate the disclosure order.
- The court held that a crime victim has no constitutional or statutory right to discover evidence in the prosecutor’s file during a pending criminal prosecution.
- The court concluded the trial judge exceeded his authority by ordering production of the defendant’s DHS statement to the victim’s attorney.
- The writ would issue only if the trial judge failed to set aside the order.

## Legal Principles

- In a criminal prosecution, the State and the defendant are the parties; a victim is not a party and does not possess party-like discovery powers.
- Texas victims’ rights provisions secure fair treatment, information, and the ability to confer with prosecutors, but they do not create a right to compelled disclosure of prosecutorial file materials.
- A criminal court may not use a pending criminal case to grant discovery to private counsel for collateral civil purposes absent legal authorization.
- Mandamus lies when the State has no adequate remedy by appeal and the trial court’s order is beyond its lawful authority.

## Conclusion

The court required the trial judge to withdraw an order compelling the State to disclose a defendant’s statement from the prosecutor’s file to the victim’s attorney, holding that victims’ rights do not authorize victim-initiated discovery in a pending criminal case and that mandamus is the proper remedy for such an unauthorized order.


State ex rel. Hilbig v. McDonald, 839 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1992)