Opinion ID: 2405385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Evidentiary Issue Involving Discovery of the Internal Affairs Report and Cross-Examination on the Subject Thereof

Text: Garden next contends that the trial court abused its discretion in barring production of the Wilmington Police Department's Internal Affairs Report concerning the incident at issue in the case at bar and prohibiting cross-examination on that subject. The trial court granted the defendants' motion in limine because it found that: (a) the report was not relevant as contemplated by D.R.E. 401; and (b) to the extent the evidence had probative value, pursuant to D.R.E. 403, its value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This Court reviews for abuse of discretion the decision of a trial court to bar production of documents and limit cross-examination on their contents. Scott v. State, Del.Supr., 642 A.2d 767 (1994). Pursuant to this Court's recent decision in Snowden, we hold that the trial court's ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and a new trial. Snowden, 672 A.2d at 1022-24. The discovery process is designed to allow litigants to ferret out relevant evidence in the opposing party's possession. The results of an independent investigation into the circumstances of the Garden-Sutton accident could be relevant to the jury's inquiry. Thus, absent some countervailing reason for barring production of this evidence, plaintiff was entitled to a review of the report to determine its probative value. As in Snowden, the defense in the case at bar has asserted a policy basis for the denial of production, viz., the interest of the Police Department in conducting inquiries into potential misconduct free of the specter that the results of the investigation will be used against them in subsequent litigation. In such a situation, it is necessary for the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the material to determine which of the competing interests should prevail. In the instant case, however, production of potentially probative evidence was barred without any prior review of the material by the trial court. We hold that Garden has established the necessary factual prerequisite at least to compel an in camera review of the material. The report necessarily is probative of the underlying facts of the case. Moreover, the defense made no representation to the trial court concerning whether the evidence had been reviewed for possible disclosure purposes. On these facts, some review of the report was required to determine the value of its contents and their susceptibility to disclosure.