Opinion ID: 2222288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Discovery Motion

Text: Defendant filed a motion seeking discovery of all police reports filed since October 1, 1977, detailing homicide investigations in the State of Indiana that resulted in the filing of murder charges. The primary purpose was to facilitate defense counsel's presentation of evidence to the trial court in support of his constitutional argument that the death penalty was not being sought or applied in a uniform manner throughout our criminal justice system. Defendant contended that the comparison data would also be of assistance during plea negotiations and for mitigation purposes before the jury and trial court during the defendant's trial. On January 19, 1984, more than one month before defendant's trial, the trial court granted defendant's discovery motion but limited it to reports filed between 1979 and 1983 concerning homicides in Marion County only. A law student was employed to conduct the research. He compiled data on more than 450 homicides that occurred in Marion County between January 1, 1979, and December 20, 1983, but stated in an affidavit that the Indianapolis Police Department denied him sufficient access to records to evaluate details of more than 300 other homicides that occurred in Marion County during the same period. Defendant now argues that the trial court committed reversible error by limiting defendant's discovery request. Further, he contends he incurred substantial harm as a result of the Indianapolis Police Department's failure to cooperate fully with the discovery order. With respect to the trial court's imposition of limitations on the scope of defendant's discovery of files related to homicide investigations, we note first that the trial court has wide discretionary latitude in discovery matters and its ruling will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of clear error and resulting prejudice. Wagner v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 476; Williamson v. State (1982), Ind., 436 N.E.2d 90. Neither is present here. In Smith v. State, we noted that the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution do not require us to compare the death sentences in the case before us with the penalties imposed in similar cases. 465 N.E.2d at 1114 (citing Pulley v. Harris (1984), 465 U.S. 37, 44, 104 S.Ct. 871, 876, 79 L.Ed.2d 29, 36). Nevertheless, it is the practice of this Court to meaningfully and systematically review each death penalty case with regard for other Indiana death penalty cases to ensure the consistent, fair and even-handed operation of Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9. Burris v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 171, cert. denied (1985), 469 U.S. 1132, 105 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed.2d 809; Resnover, supra . This review is accomplished in a procedure mandated by statute, codified by rules and controlled by precedent. Burris, 465 N.E.2d at 191-92. See also Resnover, 460 N.E.2d at 929-30; Schiro, 451 N.E.2d at 1052-53. As we noted in Resnover, one aspect of our review entails an evaluation of all of appellate counsel's arguable points in behalf of mercy for his client, and that this would permit, if not require, that appellate counsel find and direct this Court's attention to any cases involving similar factual circumstances that resulted in similar or dissimilar punishment. It does not follow from this, however, that defense counsel can automatically compel disclosure of every police, sheriff and state police report in Indiana detailing homicide investigations that resulted in the filing of murder charges. To limit such a discovery request was purely a matter for the trial court to decide after evaluating the reasonableness of the request and the necessity of the requested information for preparation of the defendant's case. The relative burden upon the State is an appropriate consideration. Jones v. State (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 1060. With respect to defendant's contention that he incurred substantial harm as a result of the Indianapolis Police Department's noncompliance with the discovery order, we find the argument to be without merit. Although it is discretionary with the court to impose sanctions, a continuance is usually deemed the proper remedy for a violation by the State of discovery orders. Averhart v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 666, cert. denied (1985), 471 U.S. 1030, 105 S.Ct. 2051, 85 L.Ed.2d 323. We see nothing in the record to indicate that defendant sought enforcement of the discovery order by calling the police department's noncompliance to the attention of the trial court. We thus deem the issue waived.