State v. Pona
| Decision Date | 08 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | C.A. P2-2008-3430A |
| Parties | STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. DARRELL PONA |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
This matter came on before the Court on November 19, 2010 regarding the State's Motion to Quash two (2) subpoenas issued by Defendant, or in the alternative, to have the Court conduct an in camera review of the various records requested by the Defendant in order to determine their potential relevance. The matter was before the Court again for further argument on December 16, 2010, wherein attorneys from the Department of Attorney General indicated that they had not personally viewed the personnel files and they did not have access to the personnel or disciplinary files of the State Police. The Defendant and the State have submitted memoranda supporting their positions and argued before this Court.
Defendant through counsel, has represented that some of the facts involved in the instant case came up in testimony taken at a violation hearing relative to a violation of a previous sentence. Defendant's counsel represented that he questioned a State Police trooper (hereinafter simply "officer") regarding the officer's testimony that he had observed Defendant attempting to break into a particular location and thereafter, the Defendant ran away. When the officer was asked why he did not chase after Defendant, the officer testified that he was unable to chase after Defendant because he was on sick leave with a leg injury. Defendant's counsel issued a subpoena for the officer's medical records in order to investigate the veracity of that particular testimony. Additionally, counsel sought Rhode Island State Police records to verify the officer's medical status with the officer's department. On October 18, 2010, in an effort to comply with the Defendant's request for information, counsel for the Rhode Island Department of Public Safety provided this Court with an official response to the inquiry on those particular points. The response, consisting of State Police documents confirmed both the injury and the sick and/or medical leave status of the officer as of June 15, 2008, which is the date of the alleged incident. The official department records, as well as the medical records in the department's possession, corroborate the veracity of the officer's testimony. Those documents were sealed in the Court file.
In addition to the above described records, Defendant's counsel, after requesting the complete disciplinary file on the officer through the discovery process, received a letter of suspension that had been sent to the officer on January 20, 2006. Defendant's counsel noted that the letter contained an express indication that the officer had been disciplined on some eighteen (18) prior occasions. Thereafter, Defendant's counsel issued a subpoena for "all personnel records" of the officer, as well as the complete medical records of the officer.
The State moves to quash the subpoenas arguing that the State has provided the information to which the Defendant is entitled and beyond that, there are no valid rounds for providing information on the scope requested by the Defendant. The State also claims that the information contained within the officer's medical records, as well as the department personnel, internal affairs, and disciplinary files is privileged by virtue of a vested privacy interest of both the Rhode Island State Police and the civilian complainants whose names and identities would be revealed by the disclosure. Lastly, the State claims that the release of such confidential files in the manner requested by Defendant could have far-reaching, unintended negative consequences for law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Rhode Island.
The State further suggests that in the event that this Court declines to grant the State's Motions to Quash, the most that Defendant could expect would be an in camera review of the particular material to determine whether the files contain information material to the defense.
The Defendant requests to have counsel review the entire files in lieu of an in camera review, arguing that the Court cannot review the records as effectively as an advocate. See Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 849 N.E.2d 400, 421 (Ma. 2007) ( ) (Internal citations omitted).
The respective parties augmented the record further on January 28, 2011, when counsel for the Rhode Island Department of Public Safety asserted that the State Police had a policy in effect ensuring confidentiality for all information obtained during investigation of a personnel complaint. Counsel later acknowledged that there was no policy in effect related to procedures to be employed in searching personnel files for information that may assist a defendant in impeaching an officer expected to testify during a trial. Defense counsel was given an opportunity to articulate what evidence he hoped to find in the requested materials, why he would think the materials contain such evidence, and why such evidence would be both favorable to his client and material.1[] Defense counsel indicated that there were some eighteen (18) prior instances of discipline involving the officer and he is seeking to learn whether any of those instances involved untruthfulness, misidentifications of suspects by the officer, misidentifications where the officer knew he had made a mistake and failed to rectify it, or bias on the part of the officer against the Defendant or certain defendants. Defense counsel further indicated that one with unlimited resources could hire an investigator and attempt to uncover this information, but Defendant was not in such a position. He renewed his request to view the files.
While Rule 17(c) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the issuance of a subpoena directing production of documentary evidence, the issuance and scope of any subpoena is subject to the discretion of the Court. The Court may control the use of the subpoena through its power to rule on motions to quash or modify. Rule 17 was never intended "to give a right of discovery, in the broadest terms" in a criminal case. See State v DiPrete, 698 A.2d 223, 226 (R.I. 1997) (citing Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951)).
Rhode Island has adopted certain standards in order to obtain information through the use of a subpoena. An individual seeking such information must show:
The materials sought by Defendant in each of the subpoenas are privileged. The rights afforded by privilege sometimes conflict with a defendant's right to conduct an effective cross-examination in all criminal matters. That right is guaranteed to the Defendant under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment, and also article 1, section 10, of the Rhode Island Constitution. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, (1974). This "basic right provides the principal means by which the credibility, veracity, perception and recollection of a witness may be tested." State v. Brennan, 526 A.2d 483, 488 (R.I. 1987). See also State v. Merida, 960 A.2d 228, 234 (R.I. 2008); State v. Tiernan, 941 A.2d 129, 133-34 (R.I. 2008); State v. Parillo, 480 A.2d 1349, 1356-57 (R.I. 1984).
Under certain circumstances, a failure to engage in any review of privileged material relevant to a particular case will have the effect of denying a defendant his right to effective cross-examination. In State v. Kelly, 554 A.2d 632 636 (R.I. 1989), the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a per se denial by the trial justice to order the production of a witness' Department of Children, Youth and Families records, or grant permission to issue a subpoena for same with an in camera review on the grounds of confidentiality, denied the defendant his right to effective cross-examination. The conviction in Kelly was vacated and the case was remanded to the Superior Court for the trial justice to review the records in camera and to order a new trial.2[] See also State v. Anthony, 440 A.2d 736 (R.I. 1982).
An in camera review of privileged information strikes the requisite balance between a defendant's constitutional right to effective cross-examination and the right to confidentiality. See State v. Kholi, 672 A.2d 429, 437 (1996). The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in its analysis of the Kholi case, noted that an in camera inspection satisfied due process requirements when a trial justice turns over material information. The Kholi opinion quotes the United States Supreme Court case of Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 107 S.Ct. 989, 1002, (1987). In Ritchie, the United States Supreme Court emphasized that a defendant's constitutional right to evidence does not include the unsupervised authority to search through the...
To continue reading
Request your trial