Opinion ID: 2039658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Grand Jury Transcript

Text: Under I.C. XX-XX-X-XX(b), a transcript of grand jury proceedings may be made available to a criminal defendant upon order of the court trying the case and only after a showing of particularized need for the transcript. Appellant filed a motion requesting a transcript of the minutes and of the oral testimony of each witness of the grand jury proceedings in his cause. He particularized his need of the transcript as follows: 4. A written transcript of the minutes and testimony given at the Grand Jury proceeding is necessary to prepare a proper defense and to conduct a thorough investigation of the charges. 5. A written transcript of the testimony given at the Grand Jury proceeding is necessary for potential use at trial to impeach testimony of the State's witnesses. The trial court ordered that the testimony of all State grand jury witnesses whom the State intended to call at trial be made available to appellant. He asserts on appeal that the omission of his own testimony before the grand jury from this order was prejudicial. The court's order fully satisfies appellant's allegation of need set forth in Number 5 of his petition. Even assuming the validity of appellant's assertion that his own grand jury testimony was necessary to investigate the charges and prepare a defense, appellant has waived any alleged error in failure to produce the record of that testimony. The court's order, issued on April 28, 1987, directed that a transcript of the testimony covered by the order be made available to appellant on or before May 5, 1987. Trial began on May 11, 1987. Appellant knew or should have known from seven to thirteen days before trial that his grand jury testimony was not to be included in the transcript provided to him under the court's order. His failure to ask for a continuance either to clarify that his motion included a request for his own testimony or to contest the court's failure to produce that testimony by its order waived the allegation that its omission prejudiced him. Dean v. State (1982), Ind., 432 N.E.2d 40.