Court Opinion

ID: 9745580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:11:11.951562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:02.611829
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I concur with the majority opinion, however, I disagree with its disposition of the trial court’s action in denying the appellant access to the answers given by the prosecuting witness during a lie detector test. The appellant’s pre-trial motion argued that he had the right “to have his counsel and himself have access to such lie detector test and hear what said [witness] stated regarding the alleged crime.” The majority opinion indicates that since the result of such a test would be inadmissible, and since in their opinion the results would not aid the appellant in the preparation of his defense, that the denial of the pre-trial motion was required. In my opinion, since this trial occurred prior to our decision in Antrobus v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 420, 254 N. E. 2d 873, the trial court did not err in overruling the pre-trial motion for discovery. However, I disagree that the granting of such a motion would be error on the reasoning of the majority.
These pre-trial statements by the State’s key witness certainly fulfill the tests laid down previously by this Court when we stated that the trial court should grant discovery where (1) there is a sufficient designation of the items sought to be discovered, (2) where the items sought are material to the defense in that it might be beneficial to the appellant’s case, and (3) where the State has made no showing of a paramount interest in non-disclosure. Dillard v. State (1971), 257 Ind. *632282, 274 N. E. 2d 387. The admissibility of the results of such' a test at the trial is not a proper criterion to use in passing on this pre-trial motion. The answers given during such a test, in my opinion, should be treated in the same manner as any other pre-trial statement, and the trial court does not have the power to grant such a pre-trial motion when the tests outlined in Dillard, supra, are fulfilled.
Note. — Reported in 283 N. E. 2d 540.