This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
2005-278, PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
State Trooper David Gagne assumed responsibility for the accident Hooksett police officer, the New Hampshire State Police were contacted and
respond to the accident. However, because the collision involved an off-duty
challenging a decision of the Hooksett District Court (
Police officers from the Town of Hooksett were the first police officers to
petition.
for writ of certiorari pursuant to RSA 490:4 (1997) and Supreme Court Rule 11,
with a vehicle driven by Jason Defina, an off-duty Hooksett police officer. defendant was involved in a motor vehicle collision on Route 3, in Hooksett, The record supports the following facts. On October 18, 2004, the
defendant Thomas Theodosopoulos’ motion to compel discovery. We deny the
Sobel, J.) granting
GALWAY, J.
The petitioner, the State of New Hampshire, filed a petition
brief and orally), for the defendant. McDowell & Osburn, P.A., of Manchester (Mark D. Morrissette on the Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address:
attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State. Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Stephen D. Fuller, senior assistant
Opinion Issued: March 15, 2006 Argued: January 19, 2006 page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. (State v. Theodosopoulos) PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. No. 2005-278 Hampshire, One Noble Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial Hooksett District Court Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as triggered an information material and relevant to his defense, which would have then exculpatory information within the purview of implicate RSA 105:13-b. Instead, he argues that his request encompassed only information contained in Defina’s personnel file, which he concedes would
2
failed to establish a reasonable probability that the requested records contain
prosecution. The defendant asserts that he is not seeking any and all
petition.
Laurie. We agree. forth in RSA 105:13-b (2001). Specifically, the State contends the defendant
impeachment evidence contained in a police officer’s personnel file, from the constitutional right to receive exculpatory information, including credibility and State v. Laurie, 139 N.H. 325 (1995), the defendant counters that he has a denial of its February 17, 2005 motion to reconsider, the State filed the instant Relying upon Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and its discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously.
in camera review of the records pursuant to RSA 105:13-b.
his use of police vehicles. This request is made pursuant to the personnel file to the prosecutor without following the requisite procedures set evidence either where the information relates to (Officer) Defina’s credibility or right, but rather at the discretion of the court. ordering the Hooksett Police Department to turn over Defina’s confidential The State asserts that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by
discretion standard). v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001)(explaining unsustainable exercise of defendant and then proceed accordingly based on the file review.” Following a Id.; cf. State disciplinary or personnel file to “review the file for contents requested by the to jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law, or unsustainably exercised Hooksett Police Department to give the prosecutor access to Defina’s Certiorari review is limited to whether the trial court acted illegally with respect injustice.” Petition of State of N.H., 152 N.H. at 187 (citation omitted). writ sparingly and only where to do otherwise would result in substantial N.H. 185, 187 (2005); see Sup. Ct. R. 11. “We exercise our power to grant the
Petition of State of N.H., 152
documentation or disciplinary memoranda which would serve as exculpatory Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that is not granted as a matter of
hearing, the court granted the defendant’s motion to compel and ordered the decision.” The State objected. At the conclusion of a February 14, 2005
State v. Laurie
requesting the State to provide, among other things, “all information, On December 30, 2004, the defendant filed a motion to compel discovery,
265: 32 (2004). The defendant entered a not guilty plea. investigation. The defendant was issued a citation for failure to yield. See RSA 3
conduct an
statutory procedure set forth in RSA 105:1 3-b. In relevant to that criminal case.
in camera review of the requested records. Id. at 54 3-45.
relevant to his defense, which then triggered the trial court’s obligation to establish a reasonable probability that the requested records were material and order to obtain the requested materials, the defendant was required to the police department. investigative reports of the shooting. Id. In that case, we concluded that in while the remainder of the file will remain confidential and must be returned to further discovery from the confidential personnel files, including all investigating police officers. Amirault, 149 N.H. at 542. The defendant sought been provided all exculpatory information contained in personnel files of
Amirault, the defendant had
contained in a confidential personnel file that may be obtained through the defendant under the State and Federal Constitutions, and other information cause exists to believe that the file contains evidence distinguished between exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed to the all exculpatory evidence. In State v. Amirault, 149 N.H. 541 (200 3), we RSA 105:13-b cannot limit the defendant’s constitutional right to obtain
Id. pertinent part:
review of the file and release only the relevant portions of the file to the parties If probable cause exists, the statute requires the judge to conduct an in camera
the sitting judge makes a specific ruling that probable opened for the purposes of that criminal case, unless witness or prosecutor in a criminal case shall be
his trial testimony. No personnel file on a police officer who is serving as a detective’s character and credibility, which could have been used to impeach
RSA 105:1 3-b (2001), “Confidentiality of Personnel Files,” provides, in
prosecutor. State v. Lucius, 140 N.H. 60, 6 3 (1995). disclose and turn over exculpatory evidence to the defendant is imputed to the defendant as exculpatory evidence. Id. Moreover, failure of the police to responsibility of determining which information must be disclosed to a at 329 (quotation and citation omitted). The prosecutor bears the counsel to ferret out concealed information, underlies the duty to disclose.” Id.
Id. at 327. “Essential fairness, rather than the ability of
exculpatory evidence included records that reflected negatively on the detective who was testifying for the State at trial. Laurie, 1 39 N.H. at 327. The evidence contained in the confidential employment records of an investigative under the State Constitution when the State knowingly withheld exculpatory In Laurie, we held that the defendant was denied due process of law 4
of probable cause and subsequent
defendant’s motion to compel.
may be contained in Defina’s confidential personnel file, the threshold finding
is contained in the file that should be provided to the defendant under BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS and DUGGAN, JJ., concurred.
Petition denied.
Accordingly, the trial court did not exceed its authority by granting the 105:13-b, are not required in this case. See Amirault, 1 49 N.H. at 542-45.
in camera review, as set forth in RSA evidence relating to a cooperating witness.
purposes. Moreover, the State has an obligation to disclose exculpatory Because the defendant is not requesting generalized information that
Laurie.
Defina’s credibility or his use of police vehicles, “pursuant to the to the file for the purpose of determining what, if any, exculpatory information the defendant’s request was limited to exculpatory evidence, related to either defendant’s access to Defina’s personnel file by granting the prosecutor access Laurie, 139 N.H. at 330. Furthermore, the trial court properly limited the information under Part I, Article 15 of the State Constitution and Laurie. See contains such information, the defendant is entitled to that exculpatory Thus, we conclude that to the extent Defina’s confidential personnel file
See Lucius, 1 40 N.H. at 63-64.
issues in the underlying case and may be admissible for impeachment decision.” As such, the requested information is directly relevant to the central
State v. Laurie
influence a jury, all investigatory work, or prosecutor’s complete file). Rather, 419 (1978) (prosecutor is not required to disclose everything that might work or an examination of the complete file. See State v. Breest, 118 N.H. 416, Defina’s personnel file. Nor is he seeking complete discovery of all investigatory not seeking access to all potentially material and relevant information in However, unlike the defendant in Amirault, the defendant in this case is