Court Opinion

ID: 9776449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:36:11.640921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:38.944425
License: Public Domain

BOLGER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The district court's ruling was a reasonable application of the appropriate rule.
Judge Miller ruled that the defendant had not made a sufficient showing that the requested records were material to his defense:
The defense has made no showing that the records sought contain evidence relevant to Mr. Booth's defense. The court cannot compel production based on conjecture as to what might exist in these records.
This ruling accurately stated the appropriate legal standard. Alaska Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) provides:
Upon a reasonable request showing materiality to the preparation of the defense, the court in its discretion may require disclosure to defense counsel of relevant material and information not covered by subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(8), and (b)(6).
The language of this rule requires defense counsel to make a reasonable showing of materiality before the court will order discovery.1 When requesting an officer's personnel *379file, defense counsel must show that it is reasonably likely that the file will contain relevant information.2
We review an order denying a motion to compel discovery for abuse of the discretion granted by this rule.3 In this case, the ree-ord supports Judge Miller's conclusion that Booth's request was based only on conjecture.4 Booth did not make any showing that the police used excessive force against him in this case. And Booth did not make a showing of any likelihood that the officers involved had a history of using excessive force.
The absence of an adequate showing of materiality distinguishes this case from March v. State, where the defendant demonstrated that the investigating officer was under investigation for giving favorable treatment to an acquaintance.5 The Alaska courts have affirmed trial court orders denying similar requests where the defendant failed to make a sufficient showing that the requested information was material to the defense case.6
I believe that Judge Miller's ruling is supported by the record and the language of the applicable rule. I conclude that he did not commit an abuse of discretion.

. See Schmid v. State, 615 P.2d 565, 571 (Alaska 1980) (quoting People v. Garcia, 67 Cal.2d 830, 64 Cal.Rptr. 110, 434 P.2d 366, 370 (1967) (holding that an informant's identity does not need to be disclosed unless the defendant demonstrates ""a reasonable possibility that the anonymous informant could give evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence which might result in the defendant's exoneration'")); Gunnerud v. State, 611 P.2d 69, 72 (Alaska 1980) (denying disclosure of psychiatric evaluation of prosecution witness in the absence of a showing of relevance); Sawyer v. State, 244 P.3d 1130, 1133-34 (Alaska App. 2011) (holding that other incidents involving children handling firearms were not sufficiently similar to require discovery); Carman v. State, 658 P.2d 131, 140 (Alaska App.1983) (noting that items listed in Rule 16(b)(7) need to be produced only where their materiality is shown).

. See State v. Acinelli, 191 Ariz. 66, 952 P.2d 304, 309 (Ariz.App.1997) (quoting United States v. Driscoll, 970 F.2d 1472, 1482 (6th Cir.1992)) (requiring the defendant to show that the personnel file "contain[s] material evidence"); State v. Ainsworth, 151 NH. 691, 867 A.2d 420, 423 (2005) (stating that the defendant must establish "'that there [is] a realistic and substantial likelihood that evidence helpful to his defense would be obtained from the officers' personnel files"); People v. Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543, 423 N.Y.S.2d 893, 399 N.E.2d 924, 928 (1979) (stating that the defendant must show "some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit"); State v. Blackwell, 120 Wash.2d 822, 845 P.2d 1017, 1022 (1993) (stating that the defendant must "advance some factual predicate which makes it reasonably likely the requested file will bear information material to his or her defense").

. Gunnerud, 611 P.2d at 72-73; Collier v. Anchorage, 138 P.3d 719, 722 (Alaska App.2006).

. See Charles v. State, 232 P.3d 739, 742 (Alaska App.2010) (noting that under Alaska Criminal Rule 42, a moving party must include a "detailed statement of material facts" and all "documentary evidence'" that supports a motion).

. 859 P.2d 714, 717 (Alaska App.1993).

. See Cockerham v. State, 933 P.2d 537, 543 (Alaska 1997) (denying defense request for in camera review where relevance of victim's juvenile record was "highly tenuous"); Dana v. State, 623 P.2d 348, 355 (Alaska App.1981) (denying mid-trial request where defense had not made "a sufficient showing of his need" for police officer's personnel file).