Angela Lundy v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 104
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Lundy was charged with Class D felony possession of hydrocodone without a valid prescription.
- Lundy subpoenaed INSPECT records from the Indiana Board of Pharmacy, asserting a right to her prescription history.
- Board moved to quash the subpoena arguing confidentiality under statute; trial court granted the motion.
- Williams v. State established a three‑part test for discoverability of INSPECT records in criminal cases.
- Court reversed, holding Lundy entitled to INSPECT report after applying the three‑part test and balancing.
- INSPECT is Indiana’s prescription monitoring program; information is confidential and limited to designated recipients unless a defendant seeks records to present a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threshold showing required to obtain INSPECT records | Lundy should not be required to prove inability to obtain records elsewhere | Board requires a threshold showing of unavailability | Abused; Lundy entitled to INSPECT report on remand |
| Application of the three‑part discoverability test | Williams governs; test applies | Case-specific limits distinguish Williams | Three‑part test applies; discovery should be allowed upon balancing |
| Particularity and availability standard | Particularity should maximize pretrial discovery | Records are readily available elsewhere, so disclosure is unlikely | Trial court abused discretion; Lundy entitled to INSPECT report on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 959 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (three-factor test for discoverability of INSPECT records; relevance and confidentiality considerations)
- In re Crisis Connection, Inc., 949 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2011) (balancing test for criminal discovery materials)
- In re WTHR, 693 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 1998) (particularity and discovery scope guidance in media/criminal cases)
- Dillard v. State, 257 Ind. 282, 274 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. 1971) (fishing expedition prohibitions guiding discovery limits)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (due process and right to present a complete defense)