in Re the State of Texas, Ex Rel Kim Ogg
WR-91,936-03
| Tex. Crim. App. | Sep 15, 2021Background
- A no-knock narcotics raid at 7815 Harding Street resulted in two deaths; the warrant relied on false information supplied by HPD Detective Gerald Goines.
- The Harris County District Attorney’s Office (Relator) conducted an independent investigation and acted as the primary investigative agency into HPD officers; that investigation produced reports and maps.
- Defendants (real parties in interest) requested the DA’s investigative reports and maps; the DA refused, claiming the materials are attorney work product exempt from disclosure under Article 39.14(a).
- The trial court ordered disclosure, treating the documents as “offense reports” that Article 39.14 requires the State to produce; the State sought mandamus relief to overturn that order.
- The Court denied mandamus because Relator did not show a clear right to relief: the record lacks the documents, the legal definition of “offense report” under Article 39.14 is unsettled, and exculpatory/impeachment material must be disclosed despite a work-product claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Relator) | Defendant's Argument (Real parties / Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DA’s investigative materials are protected work product | Materials are attorney work product and statutorily exempt | Materials are offense reports or contain discoverable facts and must be produced | No clear right to mandamus; cannot resolve without records and law unsettled |
| Whether the documents qualify as “offense reports” under Art. 39.14 | Not offense reports; produced by DA investigation, so exempt | They are offense reports subject to mandatory disclosure | Court declined to decide; law unclear and statute is recent addition |
| Whether Brady / Art. 39.14(h) override work-product protection | Work product should shield materials from disclosure | Brady and Art. 39.14(h) require disclosure of exculpatory/impeaching material despite work-product claims | Brady and Art. 39.14(h) can overcome work-product protection; thus disclosure may be required |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate now | Mandamus appropriate to prevent compelled disclosure | Mandamus inappropriate because record is incomplete and law not settled | Mandamus denied for failure to show a clear, indisputable right to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus standard: relator must show facts dictate one rational decision under well‑settled law)
- In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (mandamus requirements: no adequate remedy and ministerial act; relator must show clear right)
- Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (federal due process/Brady requires disclosure of exculpatory/impeachment evidence even if work product)
- Pope v. State, 207 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (describes Texas attorney work‑product doctrine and core vs. other work product)
- United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1975) (work‑product doctrine shelters attorney mental impressions)
- In re Medina, 475 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (mandamus: ministerial‑act requirement and clear‑right explanation)
- London v. State, 490 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (appellate relator’s burden to provide sufficient record)
- Kopeski v. Martin, 629 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (mandamus will not rest on doubtful factual determinations)