Marvin Beville v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. LEXIS 208
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Beville was charged with dealing in marijuana and maintaining a common nuisance based on a controlled buy recorded on video between him and a confidential informant (CI).
- The State provided discovery but withheld the video recording from Beville personally; it allowed only defense counsel to view the video at the prosecutor’s office and refused to provide a copy.
- Defense counsel moved to compel a copy so Beville could review the recording with counsel; the State invoked the informer’s privilege, arguing the video would reveal the CI’s identity and risk retaliation.
- The trial court denied the motion to compel; a split Court of Appeals affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The Supreme Court examined (1) whether the informer’s privilege applies to a requested item that may or may not reveal an informant’s identity, and (2) whether Beville established an exception to the privilege warranting disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Beville) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the informer’s privilege applies to the requested video | Informer’s privilege protects disclosure; video reveals CI identity so privilege applies and shifts burden to Beville | State gave only a bare assertion; record does not show video reveals CI identity and privilege therefore not established | State must first prove the privilege applies; here it failed to meet that threshold, so privilege could not justify withholding the video |
| If privilege applies, who bears the burden to obtain disclosure | Once privilege asserted, defendant must show an exception (relevant/helpful or necessary for a fair trial) | Beville argued he met the exception because video is key evidence and must be reviewed with counsel and client | Court: if privilege properly invoked, defendant bears burden to show exception; but State must first prove privilege applies |
| Whether allowing counsel-only review satisfies discovery rights | State: counsel access is sufficient for trial preparation; no need to give defendant the copy | Beville: personal review with counsel is fundamental; defendant best positioned to identify himself and facts on video | Held: counsel-only review was insufficient under these facts because defendant’s personal review was relevant and helpful to his defense |
| Whether the State produced case-specific evidence to justify nondisclosure | State relied on general policy (risk of retaliation, need to recruit CIs) | Beville: general policy assertions without case-specific facts are insufficient | Held: after defendant shows exception, State must produce case-specific reasons for nondisclosure; State failed to do so here |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillard v. State, 257 Ind. 282, 274 N.E.2d 387 (establishes the three-part Dillard test for nonprivileged discovery)
- Schlomer v. State, 580 N.E.2d 950 (describes informer’s privilege and defendant’s burden to show exception)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (balancing test for informant identity disclosure; informer’s privilege limits must yield when disclosure is necessary for a fair trial)
- In re Crisis Connection, Inc., 949 N.E.2d 789 (explains that Dillard applies only to nonprivileged information)
- Lewandowski v. State, 271 Ind. 4, 389 N.E.2d 706 (procedural framework when informer’s privilege is invoked)
- Mays v. State, 907 N.E.2d 128 (defendant must not merely speculate when asserting exception to informer’s privilege)
- Williams v. State, 529 N.E.2d 323 (after defendant meets exception burden, State must show why disclosure is unnecessary)
- Furman v. State, 496 N.E.2d 811 (public interest in protecting informants weighed against defendant’s need for disclosure)