Opinion ID: 2342437
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the district court improperly deny discovery of the CI agreement and the CI policy manual?

Text: [¶ 13] The appellant contends on appeal that he was improperly denied discovery of two documents: the CI policy manual and his signed CI agreement. He generally argues that denial of discovery of both items prevented his attorney from adequately preparing for trial and presenting his defense. His defense was that he was led to believe that the extent of his cooperation would be measured by the amount of drugs he could find. He claims that these documents supported his belief and that they would have been useful in cross-examination of the DCI agents and establishing his defense. [¶ 14] The appellant's argument is flawed for a number of reasons. Regarding the signed CI agreement, nothing in the record indicates that the appellant was actually denied access to that document. The Motion to Compel Discovery did not specifically request access to the CI agreement and it appears that appellant always had access to the document, even prior to the hearing on the Motion to Compel Discovery, let alone prior to the trial itself. The prosecutor informed the appellant before the trial that he intended to rely upon the agreement at trial. The CI agreement was introduced by the State and available as an exhibit. The appellant's attorney clearly relied on her own copy of the agreement at trial; at one point in the trial testimony she makes reference to my copy of the agreement. She also cross-examined one of the State's witnesses from her copy of the agreement and made reference to its content in her closing argument. The evidence indicates that not only did the appellant have access to the agreement prior to trial, but he also was well prepared regarding the content of the agreement. The record simply does not support the appellant's contention that he was denied access to the CI agreement. [¶ 15] We turn now to the CI policy manual. The district court clearly denied the appellant's discovery request for that document. We must determine whether this denial was an abuse of discretion. The appellant's primary contention on appeal is that the CI policy manual is a public document subject to the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA) and therefore should have been discoverable. This issue is raised for the first time on appeal. We have often said we will not address matters that were not raised below. We strongly adhere to the rule forbidding us to consider for the first time on appeal issues that were neither raised in, nor argued to, the trial court, except for those issues which are jurisdictional or are fundamental in nature. We follow this rule because it is unfair to reverse a ruling of a trial court for reasons that were not presented to it, whether it be legal theories or issues never formally raised in the pleadings nor argued to the trial court. Erwin v. State, DFS, 2010 WY 117, ¶ 15, 237 P.3d 409, 414 (Wyo.2010) (internal citations and quotations omitted). See also Whitten v. State, 2005 WY 55, ¶ 24, 110 P.3d 892, 898 (Wyo.2005); Kitzke v. State, 2004 WY 9, ¶ 13, 84 P.3d 950, 953 (Wyo.2004). [¶ 16] Because the question of whether the CI policy manual was subject to disclosure under the WPRA and thus should have been admissible at trial was not raised below, we will not directly address that issue in this appeal. See Mary's Bake Shoppe v. City of Cheyenne, 2008 WY 116, ¶ 31 n. 5, 193 P.3d 252, 259 n. 5 (Wyo.2008) (this Court disregarded appellate argument, made for the first time on appeal, that a document was discoverable under the WPRA noting that the request for production, however, was made in the context of the instant civil litigation, making her [appellate] arguments inapt.). [¶ 17] While we will not address the appellant's new appellate arguments, we will examine the admissibility of the CI policy manual, generally. Although there is no constitutional right to discovery, a defendant has a constitutionally protected right to present a defense. Ceja, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 13, 208 P.3d at 68; Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, ¶ 5, 63 P.3d 875, 879 (Wyo.2003). A defendant may request discovery of certain items from the state, but the state is only required to provide such information as indicated by statute, rule or case law. Ceja, 2009 WY 71, ¶ 13, 208 P.3d at 68. [¶ 18] At the hearing on the Motion to Compel Discovery, the appellant pointed to W.R.Cr.P. 16 as grounds for his claim that the State was required to provide the CI policy manual. That rule provides, in part: Upon written demand of the defendant, the state shall permit the defendant to inspect... documents ... which are within the possession, custody or control of the state, and which are material to the preparation of the defendant's defense.... W.R.Cr.P. 16(a)(1)(C). The appellant contends that the CI policy manual should have been provided as it was material to his defense. When considering the materiality of excluded evidence, we must determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the case would have been different had the evidence been admitted. Nelson, 2009 WY 37, ¶ 13, 202 P.3d at 1075 (quoting Vena v. State, 941 P.2d 33, 39 (Wyo.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Vaughn v.State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998)). Here, there is no such indication. [¶ 19] The appellant's defense rested on the assertion that he was confused as to the point and circumstances at which he had the authorization of DCI to buy drugs. While the DCI agents indicate that he merely was to participate in a controlled buy operation under their direct supervision and guidance, the appellant contends that he was given the impression that his goal was to acquire drugs from drug dealers regardless of whether specifically directed to do so by the agents or whether he was performing under their supervision. At the hearing on the Motion to Compel Discovery, the appellant argued that the CI policy manual was material to his defense in that failure by the agents to follow the protocol as set forth in the manual could have led to this confusion. The State responded by arguing that the CI policy manual was irrelevant and that divulging this information could put DCI agents in danger. Following arguments of both parties and an in camera inspection of the CI policy manual, the district court ruled that it was not subject to discovery. [¶ 20] After reviewing the entire record, we agree with the district court's refusal to allow discovery of the CI policy manual. Much of what is contained in the CI policy manual is also present in the CI agreement, which was available to the appellant at trial. Both the CI policy manual and the CI agreement specifically preclude a confidential informant from handling illicit drugs unless authorized to do so by DCI. Nothing in the CI policy manual, explicitly or implicitly, gives DCI agents the power to permit confidential informants unilaterally to procure drugs, as the appellant suggests. [¶ 21] What is material to the appellant's defense is the information actually conveyed to him by DCI, either in the form of the CI agreement that he signed or in the agents' oral explanation of the terms of the agreement and their expectations for his participation in the controlled buy. The record indicates that the agents adequately and clearly explained each item in the CI agreement and the appellant acknowledged his understanding of each item. The testimony of the agents emphasized this fact: Question: So in this case, did you explain to [the appellant] that he was not to go out and get drugs on his own? Answer: Absolutely. Several times. It'sit's hammered in. The appellant acknowledged his understanding of this instruction, as well as all other items included in the agreement, both orally and in writing. The appellant presents no evidence to indicate that he was authorized or instructed to go off on his own and procure illegal drugs from as many drug dealers as possible. One cannot simply infer from the fact that the appellant did not follow the instructions given to him that the instructions were necessarily inadequate or vague or that the appellant was misled. [¶ 22] In assessing whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the appellant access to the CI policy manual, we will look to the reasonableness of the trial court's decision. Person, 2004 WY 149, ¶ 11, 100 P.3d at 1275; Proffit, 2008 WY 103, ¶ 12, 191 P.3d at 977. Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998) (quoting Martin v. State, 720 P.2d 894, 897 (Wyo.1986)). After considering all of the same evidence presented, we find that the district court reasonably denied discovery of the CI policy manual as that document was not material to the appellant's defense.