### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 11

- 00391

- CR
Tara WILKERSON , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas , Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 7 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 287954 Honorable Eugenia Wright , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 30, 2012
AFFIRMED Appellant Tara Wilkerson appeals her conviction for misdemeanor assault and raises two issues on appeal: (1) the trial court erred when it denied Tara’s Brady motion to produce the prosecutor’s notes and refused to conduct an in camera inspection of the no tes, and (2) the trial court violated Texas Rule of Evidence 615 by failing to compel the State to produce the prosecutor’s notes. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.04

- 11

- 00391

- CR

- 2

- B ACKGROUND Darrell Wilkerson was divorcing his wife Tara, but they continued living together. During an argument, Tara threw a phone at Darrell which hit him in the back. Darrell walked to David Herrera’s home nearby, and Herrera saw Tara repeatedly strike Darrell. Officer Michelle Lewis responded to Darrell’s 911 call. She interviewed Darrell and Herrera, saw a mark under Darrell’s right eye and redness on his shoulder. Officer Lewis found Tara in her home, observed her condition, asked her about Darrell’s alleg ations, and arrested her. Before trial, the court granted Tara’s Brady motion and ordered the State to disclose Brady information to the defense. The State insisted it had no Brady information and that the prosecutor’s notes from witness interviews were p rivileged work product. The trial court denied Tara’s motion to produce the prosecutor’s notes. During trial, the State gave Tara Brady information that it only learned of during trial. The jury found Tara guilty of misdemeanor assault, and the court as sessed a one

- year probated sentence. Tara appeals the trial court’s judgment.
B RADY C LAIM In her first issue, Tara asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to order the State to disclose the prosecutor’s notes from Darrell’s interviews and by refusi ng to conduct an in camera inspection of the notes. She claims the notes were Brady information because they may have aided her in impeaching Darrell’s testimony. A. Disclos ing, Inspecting Alleged Favorable Evidence The State must disclose to the defense evi dence that is favorable to the defendant, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), including evidence that impeaches a State’s witness, United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 676 (1985); Harm v. State , 183 S.W.3d 403, 406 , 40804

- 11

- 00391

- CR

- 3

- (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) . Th e State must also disclose material evidence that is otherwise protected by the work product privilege if the defendant can first show the court that the evidence exists, it is within the State’s control, and it contains Brady information. See Bagley , 473 U.S. at 675; Ex parte Miles , 359 S.W.3d 647, 665

– 66, 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); see also United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 109

– 10 (1976) (recognizing that the State “may not ‘suppress substantial material evidence’” but rejecting the notion that the State must sua sponte disclose its entire investigative file such as witness interview notes (quoting In re Imbler , 387 P.2d 6, 14 (Cal. 1963))); Ransonette v. State , 550 S.W.2d 36, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (“[W]e know of no constitutional obligation of the trial court to peruse the prosecutor’ s file for exculpatory evidence in the absence of a specific request supported by some showing that such evidence exists .”). To establish a Brady violation, the defendant must show that (1) the State suppressed evidence, (2) the suppressed evidence favors the defendant, and (3) “ there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different .” Hampton v. State , 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); accord Harm , 183 S.W.3d at 406. A Brady violation denies the defendant due process and is reversible error.
Harm , 183 S.W.3d at 406; see Hampton , 86 S.W.3d at 612. We review a trial court’s denial of a request for an in camera review of putative Brady information for an abuse of discretion. See Proctor v. State , 319 S.W.3d 175, 185 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. struck); Page v. State , 7 S.W.3d 202, 207

– 08 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref’d) (en banc). However, a defendant “ may not requ ire the trial court to search through the [State’s files] without first establishing a basis for [her] claim that it contains material evidence .” See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , 480 U.S. 39, 58 n.15 (1987) ; accord
Ransonette , 550 S.W.2d at 40; Page , 7 S.W.3d at 20 6

– 0 7.04

- 11

- 00391

- CR

- 4

- B. Alleged Brady Violations Tara asserts that her due process rights were violated when the trial court refused to order the State to produce its prosecutor’s notes from Darrell’s interviews.
1. Prosecutor’s Notes Tara asserts that the prosecutor’s notes from Darrell’s interviews are actually witness statements that could contain evidence that would help her impeach Darrell’s testimony and obtain her acquittal. The State insists that the prosecutor’s notes are the prosecutor’s written impressions f rom Darrell’s interviews. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 39.14(a) ( West Supp. 2011 ) (excluding, generally, counsel’s work product and investigator’s notes from discovery); c f. Williams v . State , 940 S.W.2d 802, 804

– 05 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1997, pet. ref’d) (rejecting an assertion that prosecutor’s notes were witness statements). The State asserts that Darrell did not review, sign, or swear to the notes, the notes are privileged work product, a nd irrespective of that privilege, there is no Brady information in the notes.
2. Analysis To successfully argue a Brady violation, Tara must show that the State suppressed evidence it had that was favorable to her defense and such suppression probably affe cted the outcome of her trial. See Miles , 359 S.W.3d at 665. She alleges that the prosecutor’s notes are actually Darrell’s witness statements which may contain Brady information. Contra T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 39.14(a); Agurs , 427 U.S. at 109

– 1 0; Williams , 940 S.W.2d at 804

– 05. However, she provides no evidence or testimony that Darrell signed, adopted, or approved any of the prosecutor’s notes. Cf. Pondexter v. State , 942 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (rejecting the defendant’s asser tion that the prosecutor’s notes were “statements” under the evidentiary rule because the witness had not signed or adopted the notes); Williams , 940 S.W.2d04

- 11

- 00391

- CR

- 5

- at 804

– 05. Further, Tara does not show that the prosecutor’s notes likely contain Brady information and she provides no statute or case law that shows the prosecutor’s notes in this case are witness statements. Cf. Williams , 940 S.W.2d at 804

– 05. In fact, Williams indicates the opposite. See id. (rejecting the defendant’s assertions that prosecutor’s notes that the witnesses had reviewed and verbally approved were witness statements). Moreover, before trial, the State repeatedly asserted it had no Brady information, but when the State learned of possible Brady information just after the c harge was read and again during Darrell’s cross

- examination, it immediately disclosed to Tara Darrell’s two previous statements. Thus, Tara has failed to show there was any impeachment evidence known to the prosecution that it should have produced but did not. See Hampton , 86 S.W.3d at 612; Williams , 940 S.W.2d at 806. Having failed to show that the State suppressed any Brady information at all, Tara cannot show that the alleged evidence was favorable to her or that it was material. See Agurs , 427 U.S.

a t 109

– 10 (“ The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial, does not establish ‘ materiality ’ in the constitutional sense. ”); Miles , 359 S.W.3d at 666. Tara also f ailed to show the trial court that the prosecutor’s notes contained any Brady information that would compel the court to conduct an in camera inspection. Tara argued to the trial court that “if [Darrell’s] statements are contradictory” then she was entitl ed to the notes. But the trial court was not required to order the State to produce the prosecutor’s notes or inspect them in camera based solely on Tara’s speculation that the notes might contain impeachment evidence. See Page , 7 S.W.3d at 206 (“ We will not order the State to produce information under Brady based merely on Appellant’ s speculation that the requested information contained exculpatory evidence .”). Therefore, the trial court did not violate Tara’s due process rights when04

- 11

- 00391

- CR

- 6

- it denied her reque st for disclosure of the prosecutor’s notes and did not abuse its discretion when it denied her request for an in camera inspection. We overrule Tara’s first issue.
T EXAS R ULE OF E VIDENCE 615 In her second issue, Tara asserts that the trial court violate d Texas Rule of Evidence 615 by refusing to order the State to produce the prosecutor’s notes. A. Standard of Review We review a trial court’s determination of “whether a requested writing constitutes a [witness] statement” for an abuse of discretion. Williams , 940 S.W.2d at 805; accord Jordan v.
State , 897 S.W.2d 909, 918 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).
B. Prosecutor’s Notes Assuming arguendo that Tara preserved her claim of error that the trial court improperly denied her the prosecutor’s notes under Rule 615, Tara’s complaint still fails.
1. Evidentiary Rule In a criminal trial, after the complaining witness testifies, the defendant may move and the court must order the State to produce “ any statement of the [complaining] witness that is in [the State’s] possession and that relates to the subject matter concerning which the witness has testified .” See T EX
. R. E VID . 615; Pondexter , 942 S.W.2d at 582 (citing the former rule). A witness statement is defined in subsection (f) as: (1) a written statement made by the witness that is signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the witness; [or] (2) a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made b y the witness that is recorded contemporaneously with the making of the oral statement and that is contained in a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording or a transcription thereof[.]04

- 11

- 00391

- CR

- 7

- T EX
. R. E VID . 615(f)(1)

– (2); Guilder v. State , 794 S.W .2d 765, 767 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1990, no pet.). If the requested writing is not a statement, the State does not have to produce it. See T EX
. R. E VID . 615; Williams , 940 S.W.2d at 805; Jordan , 897 S.W.2d at 918.
2. Analysis It is undisputed that the prosecutor’s notes were handwritten information describing the State’s interviews with Darrell. Nevertheless, Tara insists that the prosecutor’s notes are actually Darrell’s witness statements under Rule 615(f)(2). See T EX
. R. E VID
. 615. The State responds that the prosecutor’s notes were merely the State’s “summary of the complainant’s expected testimony” and they do not meet the definition of statements under the Rule. See Williams , 940 S.W.2d at 804

– 05; Guilder , 794 S.W.2d at 768. The State asserts that Darrell never signed, adopted, or approved the prosecutor’s notes, and the record supports the State’s assertion. We agree that the prosecutor’s notes were not statements under Rule 615. See T EX
. R. E VID
. 615(f)(1); Willia ms , 940 S.W.2d at 805; Guilder , 794 S.W.2d at 768. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Tara’s Rule 615 motion. See Williams , 940 S.W.2d at 805; Jordan , 897 S.W.2d at 918. C ONCLUSION We conclude that the trial court did not ab use its discretion by refusing an in camera inspection of the prosecutor’s notes and that Tara Wilkerson’s due process rights were not violated. We also conclude that the prosecutor’s notes were not witness statements subject to Texas Rule of Evidence 615 . Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rebecca Simmons, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH