About this Event
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, access to the Courtroom will be limited to the Judges, limited Court personnel, and no more than two attorneys per arguing party. (Litigants and other interested parties are invited to view the argument by live webcast outside the Courtroom or remotely.)
Frank E. Minges, III, brings this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery of a complete and accurate copy of the police report that outlined the circumstances that resulted in Minges being charged with two counts of misdemeanor operating while intoxicated. The State argues the trial court was required to deny Minges’ motion pursuant to State ex rel. Keaton v. Circuit Court of Rush County, 475 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1985), which defined all police reports as the attorney work-product of prosecutors and protected that privilege from waiver if defense counsel is allowed to view, but not retain, a copy of the report. Minges acknowledges Keaton, but argues it is out of step with application of the attorney work-product privilege in other contexts and with the expectations we have of a justice system that strives to be fair to defendants charged with crimes. Minges also argues the Prosecutor in his case waived the work-product privilege by failing to assert it in a timely manner.
The scheduled panel members are Judges Bailey, May, and Robb.