The Division of Corrections does not function as an agent of either the State or the defense in fulfilling its role as an agent of the trial court in gathering information relating to a specific defendant. Because of the requirement that the report be objective, it is of vital importance that the author of the report be neutral and independent from either the prosecution or the defense. The purpose of a PSI is to do more than simply compile the factual background regarding a specific defendant. The report contains a variety of areas where the PSI writer is able to make discretionary determinations. This portion of the PSI involves the writer's subjective feelings regarding the defendant to be sentenced.
Many PSIs contain a writer's specific sentencing recommendations to the court as well.
The State argues that the relationship between the PSI writer and the prosecuting attorney is irrelevant and provides no basis upon which the PSI should be struck. In support of its position, the State notes that the author is entitled to consult with both the prosecution and the defense in the preparation of the report and that such consultation necessarily involves contact with counsel from both sides. The State therefore concludes that because the PSI author could consult with the prosecuting attorney, the marital relationship is irrelevant. We are not persuaded. It is not the mere existence of contact between the prosecuting attorney and the PSI writer that is at issue.