State v. Webb, No. 0905012675 (Del.Gen.Sess. 4/15/2010)

Decision Date15 April 2010
Docket NumberCase No. 0905012675.
PartiesSTATE OF DELAWARE, v. LATORIA WEBB, Defendant.
CourtCourt of General Sessions of Delaware

Michelle E. Whalen, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for the State.

T. Andrew Rosen, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender, 900 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for the Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALEX J. SMALLS, Chief Judge.

ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE STATE TO PRODUCE USE OF FORCE REPORTS

Pursuant to Court of Common Pleas Criminal Rule 16, defendant requested discovery from the State on October 7, 2009 by email. The State and the Public Defender's Office have agreed to this procedure to facilitate the large volume of cases which each office must address. A first motion to compel discovery was filed by defendant on October 27, 2009. For some unexplained reason, that motion was not heard. A second motion to compel was filed on November 6, 2009, and the Court heard this motion on January 15, 2010. In this motion, defendant demanded the State produce any reports prepared by the officers regarding the use of force. Following the hearing, the Court reserved decision and ordered written arguments.

Facts and Procedural History

Defendant Latoria Webb (hereinafter "Defendant") was arrested May 15, 2009, on two charges of Resisting Arrest and two charges of Disorderly Conduct. Defendant pled not guilty on August 18, 2009 and demanded a jury trial, which was originally scheduled for October 28, 2009.

In both motions referred to above, Defendant requested police reports, any exculpatory material pursuant to Brady p. Maryland, and any other Rule 16 reports prepared as a result of the alleged incident. The Court continued the trial to June 16, 2010 to consider the parties' written submissions.

Analysis

A defendant's right to discovery in a criminal case is governed by Court of Common Pleas Criminal Rule 16. Therefore, unless defendant can point to a provision in the rule or other case law, her request for any material must fail.

The language of Criminal Rule 16 is very specific regarding matters which are discoverable pre-trial and it does not permit discovery of police reports. Therefore, since police reports are not discoverable under the rule and a use of force report is by its nature a police report, it is not discoverable. In State v. Burns,1 this Court wrote that "[a] Use of Force Report is ... an internal police report required, by the police agency, to be filed by its officers whenever certain levels of force are used in carrying out their duties."2

Defendant argues she is entitled to the Use of Force Reports under the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Jencks v. United Stated, 357 U.S. 657, 77 S. Ct. 1007 (1975). There, the Court held that a defendant is entitled to all reports of government witnesses touching on the events and activities to which they testified at trial, to determine if they may aid the defendant's defense. The general rule is that Jencks material is discoverable after the witness has testified. However, defendant argues that because trials are normally only a matter of hours in the Court of Common Pleas, the Court should order their production prior to trial to avoid unnecessary delay or potential scheduling problem.

In Hooks v. State,3 Delaware courts formerly adopted the rule announced in Jencks v. United States,4 with respect to production of a witness' prior-written statement. Defendant argues that the Jencks rule, as adopted, does not limit the production of witness statements to the actual trial. Additionally, Defendant argues that the Delaware Supreme Court decision in Snowden v. State5 requiring a defendant to make a "threshold showing" of materiality "to compel production of personnel files" is inapplicable in this case.6 The State refers to Court of Common Pleas Criminal Rule 16, as well as case law,7 in support of its position that no requirement exists which requires the production of such material pre-trial.

I find no basis to conclude that defendant is entitled to the police reports except pursuant to the Jencks rule. Further, there is no compelling reason to go outside the Jencks requirement that the report be produced only after the witness testified.8 Specifically, Jencks requires the State to turn statements over to the defense at time of cross-examination which related to the subject matter of a witness' direct examination.9

In this case, Defendant seeks a copy of the Use of Force Report as part of pre-trial discovery and prior to the police officer's testimony on direct. Such a request is clearly impermissible under Jencks. Further, Court of Common Pleas Criminal Rule 26.2 specifically provides that a witness' statement is to be produced on motion after the witness has testified on direct examination.10 This is consistent with Court of Common Vims Criminal Rule 16 that statements by State witnesses or prospective State witnesses are expressly not subject to discover).11

THEREFORE, the defendant's motion for the use of force report at this stage of the proceeding is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

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