Minges v. State

Decision Date23 August 2022
Docket Number22S-CR-285
PartiesFrank E. Minges, III, Appellant (Defendant below), v. State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Frank E. Minges, III, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 22S-CR-285

Supreme Court of Indiana

August 23, 2022


Argued: May 18, 2022

Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court No. 15D01-2010-CM-754 The Honorable Jonathan N. Cleary, Judge

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals No. 21A-CR-216

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Michael C. Cunningham

Judson G. McMillin

Zachary J. Anderson

Mullin, McMillin & McMillin, LLP

Brookville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray

Andrew A. Kobe

Office of the Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE INDIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNCIL

Bernice Corley

Suzy St. John

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE PUBLIC DEFENDER OF INDIANA

Amy E. Karozos

Jay M. Lee

Steven H. Schutte

Indianapolis, Indiana

OPINION

1

David, Justice.

Over thirty years ago, this Court decided State ex rel. Keaton v. Cir. Ct. of Rush Cnty., 475 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1985). Citing an undue burden on prosecuting attorneys and the potential for abuse by defense counsel, the Court concluded criminal trial courts do not have inherent authority to require the State to produce complete copies of police reports over the prosecuting attorney's timely work product objection. Id. at 1148. Decided in a time when lawyers redacted documents using Marks-a-Lot markers, the Keaton court was unlikely to fathom electronic filing or software programs readily accessible to legal professionals today.

But as technology developed after our Keaton decision, the rules governing criminal procedure, and custom, likewise changed over time. And today, the majority of prosecutors across the State of Indiana regularly produce police reports to defendants and their counsel, while prosecutor's offices in the minority of counties automatically assert the work product privilege over these documents as a matter of policy.

In the midst of this change, Minges challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to compel the State to produce a copy of the police report related to his misdemeanor charges. In doing so, Minges asks us to reconsider our decision in Keaton. Today, we accept his request, overrule Keaton, and remand to the trial court to determine whether the police report is privileged work product in a manner consistent with this opinion.

Facts and Procedural History

On October 13, 2020, a Dearborn County police officer observed a vehicle driven by Minges exceeding the speed limit and failing to stay in its traffic lane. The officer initiated a traffic stop, and a field sobriety test revealed Minges had a blood alcohol content of 0.099%.

The next day, the State charged Minges separately for operating his vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor under Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2(a), in a manner that endangered a person, a Class A

2

misdemeanor under Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2(b). That same day, defense counsel appeared on Minges' behalf. Simultaneously, Minges filed a motion for discovery, which requested twenty-three items, including, and noteworthy for our purposes, "[a]ny and all reports known to the State made in writing by any policeman or investigating officer which are relevant to the charge against Defendant," and "any such reports which the Prosecuting Attorney may acquire or learn of in the future at any time prior to trial." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 19.

On October 26, the State responded to Minges' discovery requests by producing copies of the probable cause affidavit and documents related to the search warrant. However, the State refused to produce a copy of the Dearborn County Sheriff's Department Case Report Narrative ("Police Report"), specifying the Police Report was "available to review upon appointment" with the Dearborn County Prosecutor's Office. Id. at 37, 58.

A contentious discovery battle ensued between the parties, and Minges moved to compel the State to produce the Police Report. In his motion, he recounted that his attorney requested a copy of the Police Report via email, but the prosecutor denied his request and informed defense counsel that, pursuant to the policy of the prosecutor's office, he could review the report by making an appointment or signing a non-negotiable protective order. Because defense counsel questioned whether his ethical obligations to his client prevented him from signing the protective order,[1] he reviewed the Police Report at the prosecutor's office.

Over a month later, the parties appeared before the trial court regarding Minges' motion to compel. At that time, defense counsel clarified the State had "no objection" to providing the Police Report to Minges, but rather "[i]t's just the manner in which it gets provided to [Minges and his counsel]." Tr. at 5. Further, Minges argued in his motion

3

that "[t]he State's attempt to control when and where Defense Counsel can access evidence negatively impacts a Defendant's rights to the effective assistance of counsel and due process of law," and its policy was "impractical and problematic on its face, but especially in the midst of [the COVID-19] pandemic." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 59.

The State, on the other hand, conceded there was no harm in providing the Police Report to Minges and his counsel, but refused to do so because police reports are the work product of the prosecuting attorney. And, consistent with this Court's earlier decision in Keaton, 475 N.E.2d 1146, a trial court "in a criminal proceeding does not have any inherent power to order production of verbatim copies of police reports over a work product objection," unless the reports contain statements from witnesses. Tr. at 67.

The trial court acknowledged "this is an issue that's been litigated a lot in [the] courtroom in the past [twelve] years," but in the absence of case law overturning Keaton, concluded it had "no discretion" to compel the State to produce the Police Report. Id. at 7-8. Accordingly, the trial court denied Minges' motion.

Minges moved to certify the trial court's order denying his motion to compel for interlocutory appeal. The trial court granted his motion, and the Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction over the matter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, writing that "[d]espite [the court's] concerns about the continued viability of Keaton," but understanding it was bound by the Supreme Court's precedent, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Minges'...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT