Motion for discovery of personnel records of the officer who was first to respond to the scene; In camera review pursuant to MCR 6.201(C)(2); People v Laws; People v Stanaway

The court held that defendant established “a good-faith belief” there was a reasonable probability the personnel file of the officer who was first on the scene was “likely to contain material information bearing on the officer’s credibility that is necessary to the defense such that defendant is entitled to have the trial court conduct an in camera inspection of the records.” Thus, in this interlocutory appeal it reversed the order denying his motion for discovery of the personnel records, and remanded. He offered “a news article explaining that the officer had been found to have violated the policies and oath of the department, the public trust, and the trust of other officers. The article also stated that an investigator had questioned the officer’s honesty related to the investigation.” Defendant asserted that information in the “personnel file related to the officer’s discipline, termination, and statements is discoverable because it is necessary to prepare for” the officer’s cross-examination and for defendant’s defense. The court noted that whether the information in the file was admissible at trial did not control whether it was discoverable. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Stanaway that where “a defendant can establish a reasonable probability that the privileged records are likely to contain material information necessary to his defense, an in camera review of those records must be conducted to ascertain whether they contain evidence that is reasonably necessary, and therefore essential, to the defense.” Only after the trial court conducts this review “and is satisfied that the records reveal evidence necessary to the defense is the evidence to be supplied to defense counsel.” The Supreme Court further “explained that the inquiry to determine whether to actually provide information to defense counsel is ‘similar, but not identical’ to the inquiry to determine whether in camera review is warranted[.]” The court concluded that in camera review here “will balance the interest of confidentiality in the records sought with ‘the possibility that there may be exculpatory evidence in such records necessary to prevent the conviction of an innocent person.’”