Opinion ID: 2066555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Appellant's requests for Commonwealth's complete files

Text: Finally, appellant claims that the PCRA court erred in failing to grant his sweeping requests for production of the complete files of the police investigation into Graves' murder as well as all non-privileged information in the Commonwealth's files. Appellant contends that such an order was warranted given alleged unexplained gaps in the discovery provided by the Commonwealth as set forth in the context of appellant's discovery claims. Appellant's Brief at 70. The Commonwealth responds that appellant is not entitled to relief on this claim both because he fails to cite any authority to support it and because his discovery request was overbroad. As support for its contention that the discovery request was overbroad, the Commonwealth notes that the request was made without regard to whether any particular item had exculpatory value, could be relevant to a PCRA claim, or was already in the possession of the defense. In any event, the Commonwealth argues, the discovery request was premised entirely on allegations of discovery violations on the part of the Commonwealth that were utterly meritless. In denying relief on this claim, the PCRA court noted that appellant's discovery request was premised on the mere speculation that possible trial court errors or potential exculpatory evidence could be discovered. Accordingly, the court determined that appellant failed to satisfy the good cause requirement of Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(2). This Court reviews a PCRA court's denial of a discovery request for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Bryant, 579 Pa. 119, 855 A.2d 726, 749-50 (2004). On the first counseled petition in a death penalty case, no discovery shall be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, except upon leave of court after a showing of good cause. Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(E)(2). A showing of good cause requires more than just a generic demand for potentially exculpatory evidence. Bryant, 855 A.2d at 750 (quoting Commonwealth v. Chambers, 570 Pa. 3, 807 A.2d 872, 889 (2002)). Appellant's PCRA discovery request was the same sort of generic plea for hypothetical evidence that we have rejected as falling far short of the good cause requirement of Rule 902(E)(2). See, e.g., Bryant, 855 A.2d at 750 (rejecting discovery request of petitioner who merely speculate[d] as to possible trial court errors, or potentially exculpatory evidence); Commonwealth v. Carson, 590 Pa. 501, 913 A.2d 220, 261 (2006) (rejecting fishing expedition for possible exculpatory evidence). The PCRA court acted well within its discretion in refusing to order such all-encompassing discovery upon mere generic demand.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm that part of the order of the PCRA court denying appellant a new trial. Justice SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, Justice TODD, Justice McCAFFERY and Justice GREENSPAN join the opinion.