Opinion ID: 2244925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to compel production and to review police reports in camera.

Text: Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion requesting, among other things, production of the following documents: Copies of all police reports concerning any investigative activities which have been conducted since the 21st day of March, 1994 with regard to the incident alleged in the charging [sic].... (R. at 145.) The State objected to providing the reports, and the trial court sustained the objection. Defendant then filed a motion asking the trial court to order that the requested police reports be produced for review by the court in camera to determine if there might be discoverable information contained therein. This motion was also denied. Defendant again raised the issue in a pretrial hearing and was again denied relief. On appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion demanding discovery of police investigative reports and in refusing to compel production for in camera review to determine if there might be discoverable information within any such reports. Decisions relating to discovery requests are committed to the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent clear error in the exercise of that discretion. Williamson v. State, 436 N.E.2d 90, 92 (Ind. 1982). Unless the privilege has been waived, investigative police reports are not discoverable and are considered protected as the work product of the prosecutor. State ex rel. Keaton v. Circuit Court of Rush County, 475 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind.1985). Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's initial request for discovery of the police reports. The denial of the request for in camera review of the police reports for potentially discoverable evidence presents a closer question. In State ex rel. Crawford v. Superior Court of Lake County, 549 N.E.2d 374 (Ind.1990), we recognized the continuing vitality of the Keaton rule but distinguished the production of police reports from witness statements. We stated that the work product privilege which generally protects police reports from pretrial discovery does not protect substantially verbatim witness statements. Id. at 376. The prosecutor in a criminal case has a constitutional mandate to turn over material exculpatory evidence in its possession. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); Johnson v. State, 584 N.E.2d 1092, 1103-4 (Ind.1992). If a trial judge has concerns about whether the prosecutor might be withholding exculpatory or discoverable information, we stress that in camera review is the proper method for resolving these concerns. State ex rel. Crawford, 549 N.E.2d at 376 (Where documents containing verbatim statements are interspersed with a police officer's opinions, impressions, and theories, in camera inspection by the trial court should permit the court to determine whether a document is essentially a verbatim statement and therefore discoverable or essentially a police report containing occasional quotations and thus privileged.). However, this is not a case where specifically named witness statements were being withheld by the State. Rather, in this instance, defendant made separate requests for [c]opies of any and all statements, in whatever form, taken from persons who are charged with or suspected of committing the crimes alleged and [c]opies of any statements, substantially verbatim accounts of statement and/or audio or videotaped statements and transcripts thereon taken from anyone concerning this case since the 21st day of March, 1994. (R. at 145.) In addition, defendant also sought autopsy reports and medical records pertaining to McCloud and Nunn, [a] copy of a note received by Detective Tom Hay of the Anderson City Police Department, [a] copy of a letter received by the Anderson Police Department from Theadell Polk, and copies of the videotapes of police lineup procedures. (R. at 144-45.) Defendant does not assert the State failed to provide all such requested discovery. The only discovery request he complains of being refused was a non-specific blanket claim for all police reports prepared after a certain date, documents which are specifically excluded from discovery. Keaton, 475 N.E.2d at 1148. Nowhere in defendant's motion for in camera review did he allege that specific documents of an exculpatory nature were being withheld. Under the circumstances of this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to compel production of all police reports for in camera review. Accord State v. Mak, 105 Wash.2d 692, 718 P.2d 407, 417-18 (1986), cert. denied, Mak v. Washington, 479 U.S. 995, 107 S.Ct. 599, 93 L.Ed.2d 599 (1986) (the mere possibility that some item of undisclosed evidence might help the defense does not require the trial court to conduct an in camera review of police investigative files).