Opinion ID: 1739853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the lower court err in overruling the request by the defendant for the state to provide all law enforcement records with regard to the west side rapist in which robert lee white, jr. was definitely a suspect.

Text: Appellant filed a request for discovery and request for production. The request for production sought (1) all records of any law enforcement group that was formed to investigate the alleged rapes out in the west area of Hattiesburg and specifically the alleged rapes of the West Side Rapist. (2) The personnel file of Hattiesburg Police Detective Stuart Stephenson, including all records of complaints, reprimands or disciplinary action taken against him by the Hattiesburg Police Department or any agency. Counsel for appellant stated: There was a law enforcement group formed approximately 10 to 12 to 13 officers, detectives from this area and other areas in the State and I'd ask that I receive a copy of any and all reports that they may have made or evidence they gathered. After a brief discussion of defense counsel's entitlement to these materials the court inquired of the prosecutor as to whether he knew of the existence of such records. The prosecutor responded: The only records I'm aware of, Your Honor,  and I think, perhaps defense counsel may already have 'em  but there are a number of innocent individuals whose prints were compared with the latent lifts that we obtained from the scene over a two year period. Who were absolutely innocent, never been charged with any crime and their fingerprints were submitted but I think they've been furnished. Any other material I'm not aware of... . As far as all records, I don't know of any case that we are required to produce all records of any law enforcement agency. We'd produce all records pertinent to this particular case and will continue to do so. This Court would point out at this juncture that if there was in fact some investigative police group having possession of discoverable materials, the appellant would be entitled to it upon request. We stated in Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45 (Miss. 1985): Further, where discoverable material is in the possession of the state crime laboratory, an agency charged with law enforcement or any other state agency or office, the prosecution's obligation to produce it according to the rules of discovery remains unchanged. The state is not free to hide discoverable material behind a curtain of agency. For purposes of discovery all of these agencies are the state. See United States v. Deutsch, 475 F.2d 55 (5th Cir.1973); Box v. State, 437 So.2d 19 (Miss. 1983), concurring opinion of Justice Robertson, f.n. 4. 468 So.2d at 56. The lower court noted that the defense was entitled to that which concerned this case and denied the request for production. However, during the omnibus hearing, the state tendered additional discovery, including documents, statements, witnesses, and physical evidence. It also tendered fingerprint analysis of other parties not involved in this litigation, but that had been taken by the investigating agencies. The defense counsel and prosecutor made the following statements: BY DEFENSE COUNSEL: The defense will state at this time it has obtained all documents in the file of the District Attorney's office and I have fully inspected the prosecution file. BY PROSECUTOR: If it please the Court, the State would assert that it has disclosed all evidence in our possession favorable to the defendant on issue of guilt. In fact we made a complete copy of the entire file pertaining to it. At the end of this transaction the prosecutor inquired of defense counsel as to whether he desired further discovery. The response was, no, I think discovery has been completed. This Court held recently in Hentz v. State, 489 So.2d 1386, (Miss. 1986), that in criminal cases the prosecution should make available to defense attorneys all such materials in their files and allow defense attorneys to determine whether the material is useful in the defense of the case, (at 1388). All of the evidence in the record supports the contention that the prosecutor in the case at bar did indeed comply fully with this recommendation. We commend the prosecutor for his compliance and cooperation in making his files available to the defense. There is nothing in the record other than unsupported suggestions by appellant to show the existence of any records or files pertinent to the case at bar not produced by the prosecution. Appellant has failed to show any discovery violation sufficient to warrant reversal of this case. Appellant argues secondly that he is entitled to the personnel files of Detective Stephenson in order to sift through in hopes of finding something damaging with which to impeach him as a witness. Rule 4.06 of Mississippi Uniform Rules of Circuit Court provide: The prosecution shall disclose to each defendant or to his attorney and permit him to inspect, copy, test, and photograph upon request and without further order the following: (1) Names and addresses of all witnesses in chief proposed to be offered by the prosecution at trial; (2) Copy of any recorded statement of the defendants to any law enforcement officer; (3) Copy of the criminal record of the defendant, if proposed to be used to impeach; (4) Copy of crime lab reports or report or any tests made; (5) Exhibit any physical evidence and photos to be offered in evidence; and (6) Copy of any exculpatory material concerning defendant. Upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense, the court may require such other discovery to defense counsel as justice may require. The personnel file of a potential witness is not among the required disclosure in Rule 4.06, nor does appellant cite any authority in support of this contention. The fact that the officer's personnel records were in the possession of the police department (by virtue of his employment) in no way alters the employer/employee status or relationship. To require an employee to surrender the personnel files of an employee to be sifted through in such a fashion for no good cause would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy which this Court, under the circumstances, will not condone.