State v. Hopperstad, CX-84-1813
| Decision Date | 07 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CX-84-1813,CX-84-1813 |
| Citation | 367 N.W.2d 546 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. John Douglas HOPPERSTAD, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Trial court erred in ruling that statements of police officers and others in the police department's internal investigation file were protected and not discoverable before it reviewed the file in camera to determine if any exculpatory material was in the file or if defendant's needs outweighed the need for confidentiality.
2. Trial court erred in allowing a mock videotaped reenactment of the events surrounding the appellant's arrest to be played for the jury.
David W. VanDerHeyden, Rochester, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Fred R. Kraft, County Atty., Austin, for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by RANDALL, P.J., and SEDGWICK and HUSPENI, JJ.
John Douglas Hopperstad was convicted of violating Sec. 10.06(3), disorderly conduct, of the Austin city ordinance, and he appealed. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
On January 17, 1984, Hopperstad was arrested for disorderly conduct following a scuffle at the Law Enforcement Center in Austin. In the course of the scuffle, Hopperstad was maced. He later claimed an injury caused by the mace, and Austin police captain Gordon Bjorgo was requested to conduct an internal investigation into the incident in case any civil suit was initiated by Hopperstad.
All police reports prepared in connection with the criminal charge were disclosed to Hopperstad before trial, but internal investigation reports, including statements by police officers and other witnesses, were not. The morning of trial Bjorgo was served with a subpoena duces tecum demanding two taped statements of the defendant and the complete internal investigation file. Bjorgo appeared with the internal investigation file but the prosecutor objected to its release. The trial court required the defendant's taped statements to be turned over to the defense, but, without inspecting the file, ruled that the statements of police officers and others in the internal investigation file were not discoverable. The defendant's taped statements were played to the jury.
Later in the trial the prosecutor, over defense objection, had Bjorgo show the jury a videotaped "reenactment" of the incident which led to Hopperstad's arrest, in which a police officer played the part of Hopperstad. The reenactment tape was a part of the internal investigation file.
1. Did the trial court err in ruling that statements of police officers and others in the internal investigation file were protected and not discoverable?
2. Did the trial court err in allowing a mock videotaped reenactment of the events surrounding the appellant's arrest to be played for the jury?
This case involves a misdemeanor. Discovery is governed by Minn.R.Crim.P. 7.03. Under that rule, defense counsel is entitled to inspect police investigatory reports. Additional discovery in misdemeanor cases is provided under the rules pertaining to gross misdemeanor and felony cases "by consent of the parties or motion to the court."
Appellant was provided with all police reports prepared in relation to the criminal charge. In addition, he was provided with the statements he gave investigators in connection with the internal investigation. He was not provided with statements given by police officers (who were required to give statements under penalty of losing their jobs) and by police dispatchers who testified at trial and who had observed the incident on a closed-circuit television system. Appellant contends he was entitled to those statements under Minn.R.Crim.P. 9.01, subd. 1(1)(a), (6) and (7).
Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1)(a) requires the prosecuting attorney, on request of defense counsel, to allow inspection of relevant written recorded statements made by persons the prosecutor expects to call as witnesses. Rule 9.01, subd. 1(6) requires the prosecuting attorney to disclose any material which tends to negate or reduce the guilt of the accused, and subd. 1(7) makes it clear that the obligation of the prosecuting attorney extends not only to material and information in his direct control, but also that under the control of his staff or "others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly report or with reference to the particular case have reported to his office." It is clear that the internal investigation report here contained statements made by persons who were later called as witnesses. It is also clear that the material was under the control of persons who participated in the investigation and who regularly report to the prosecuting attorney's office.
The State contends that reports in the file are protected under the state Data Practices Act, since they were not prepared for the criminal charge but for any civil action which might be filed. Minn.Stat. Sec. 13.39, subd. 2 (1982), reads:
Data collected by state agencies, political subdivisions or statewide systems as part of an active investigation undertaken for the purpose of the commencement or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, City of Minneapolis v. Lynch
...reports. Other discovery may be conducted under Rule 9 by consent of the parties or by motion to the court. See State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). In Hopperstad this court dealt with a similar issue, but in a slightly different factual context. The defendant there ......
-
State v. Rasinski
...testimony does show that the vehicles were not traveling faster than the posted 55 m.p.h. speed limit. Further, State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.App.1985), relied upon by appellant, is distinguishable from this case. In Hopperstad, this court reversed a conviction in part due to th......
-
State v. Knutson, C8-95-1093
...(Minn.App.1985) (upholding in camera review of victim's medical records), review denied (Minn. Dec. 13, 1985); State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Minn.App.1985) (reversing trial court's ruling that statements of police officers were not discoverable and remanding for in camera review......
-
State v. Stewart
...of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Appellant then pointed out that in State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.App. 1985), the court of appeals found that a recreation of the incident that led to the defendant's arrest was not relevant. Rely......