State v. Schmitt, 87A04-0903-CR-151.
| Decision Date | 28 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 87A04-0903-CR-151.,87A04-0903-CR-151. |
| Citation | 915 N.E.2d 520 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Defendant, v. Lindsey D. SCHMITT, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mark K. Phillips, Boonville, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
The Warrick Superior Court dismissed criminal misdemeanor charges against Lindsey Schmitt ("Schmitt") due to the State's failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. The State appeals and argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed the charges as a sanction for a discovery violation absent a showing of deliberate misconduct or bad faith. Concluding that the trial court did not clearly err when it dismissed the charges as a sanction for the discovery violation, we affirm.
On March 18, 2008, Schmitt was charged with Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a BAC between .08 and .15, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. A trial date was eventually scheduled for January 30, 2009.
On November 25, 2008, Schmitt filed Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, and, in response, the State filed a motion for a protective order. On January 5, 2009, Schmitt filed a motion to compel. The trial court held a hearing on the motions on January 16, 2009. That same day, the trial court issued an order granting the State's motion for a protective order with regard to the interrogatories, but denying the State's motion with regard to the request for production. The trial court ordered the State to respond to Schmitt's request for production by January 23, 2009. Appellant's App. p. 31. In her request for production, Schmitt asked for the following:
(1) Any and all information as to when the arresting officer went to the Indiana State Police Academy, or attended training regarding administration of traffic stops.
(2) Produce any and all certificates and/or other information supporting the documentation as to when the officer was last trained in the administration of standardized field sobriety tests.
(3) Produce any and all information supporting the documentation as to what NHTSA manual the arresting officer uses and was trained under.
Due to inclement weather, Schmitt's January 30, 2009 trial was continued and the parties were ordered to appear on February 27, 2009, to reset the trial date. On February 3, 2009, Schmitt moved to strike the arresting officer's testimony and/or dismiss the charges against her because the State had not complied with the court's January 16, 2009 order. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on March 10, 2009.
After hearing the testimony of the arresting officer and the arguments of the parties, the trial court stated:
My ... sense of all of this is that the Prosecutor may not have used as much diligence as they could have in getting this information. And what this whole situation exemplifies, I think, is a dispute between the State Police and the Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Office and the defense attorneys, and everybody is tied up in this dispute. Unfortunately, it's affecting individuals. It affects the Defendant. It affects the trooper. It affects the deputy prosecutor that has to argue and deal with these issues. And quite frankly, it just needs to stop.... [T]his doesn't serve any useful purpose. And it's going to end up in results that could or should be ... different.
I really do not want to dismiss this case. I understand the position that Ms. Schmitt is in, and she shouldn't be in that position.... I've been doing this for over 30 years, and I've never seen so much paperwork trying to ... deal with discovery. And the heck of it is that after all of the motions, all of the things, we still don't have an answer to it. I still don't have the documents in hand that have been requested, and it still doesn't resolve the dispute of whose responsibility is it. Is it the Prosecutor if something goes wrong, or can they pass the responsibility on to the law enforcement agency? I don't know the answer....
I guess I'm most bothered by the fact that the State just has not gotten this information. I mean, I think they are on track to getting it now with the letter, but I don't know why it took so long to figure out how to get on track, and I don't know if and when this information is going to be provided. But I'm extremely frustrated by this situation. It's just something that shouldn't have occurred. And the heck of it is, as I indicated earlier, I'm not sure if there's anyone in this room that's particularly responsible for it.
Tr. pp. 67-69. The trial court then dismissed the charges against Schmitt. The State now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
The State argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed the charges against Schmitt for the State's discovery violation because there was no evidence of deliberate misconduct or bad faith. It is important to note our standard of review under circumstances like these.
A trial judge has the responsibility to direct the trial in a manner that facilitates the ascertainment of truth, ensures fairness, and obtains economy of time and effort commensurate with the rights of society and the criminal defendant. Where there has been a failure to comply with discovery procedures, the trial judge is usually in the best position to determine the dictates of fundamental fairness and whether any resulting harm can be eliminated or satisfactorily alleviated .... The trial court must be given wide discretionary latitude in discovery matters since it has the duty to promote the discovery of truth and to guide and control the proceedings, and will be granted deference in assessing what constitutes substantial compliance with discovery orders. Absent clear error and resulting prejudice, the trial court's determinations as to violations and sanctions should not be overturned.
Lindsey v. State, 877 N.E.2d 190, 195 (Ind. Ct.App.2007), trans. denied (quoting Fosha v. State, 747 N.E.2d 549, 553-54 (Ind. 2001), overruled on other grounds by Gutermuth v. State, 868 N.E.2d 427 (Ind. 2007)).
If a remedial measure is warranted, a continuance is usually the proper remedy. Id. at 196. Where the State's actions were deliberate and the conduct prevented a fair trial, a more extreme remedial measure, such as the exclusion of evidence, may be employed. Id. Dismissal of charges is also a sanction within the arsenal of the trial judge in dealing with the failure of the prosecution to afford the defense access to evidentiary materials as ordered. Robinson v. State, 450 N.E.2d 51, 52 (Ind.1983). In determining whether dismissal was proper, the court should consider whether the breach was intentional or in bad faith and whether substantial prejudice resulted. See id....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Matheny v. State
- Brakie v. State
-
State v. Larkin
... ... 2016). Larkin asserts Taylor is not controlling because the misconduct in this case is far greater and more akin to State v. Schmitt , 915 N.E.2d 520, 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. We agree with Larkin. 44] In Taylor , police officers and prosecutors eavesdropped on ... ...
- Wolfe v. State, 49A02–1504–CR–226.