Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lundy v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana

February 20, 2015

Angela Lundy, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court. The Honorable Jose Salinas, Judge. Case No. 49G14-1308-FD-52186.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Darren Bedwell, Marion County Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE NON-PARTY INDIANA BOARD OF PHARMACY: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Dennis E. Mullen, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Vaidik, Chief Judge. Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.

OPINION

Page 657

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[¶1] Angela Lundy was charged with Class D felony possession of a controlled substance. The existence of a valid prescription is a defense to this crime. Lundy served a subpoena on non-party Indiana Board of Pharmacy (" the Board" ), requesting a copy of her INSPECT report. As part of the INSPECT program, the Board compiles controlled-substance information into an online database.

[¶2] The Board filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming that the information was confidential pursuant to statute. The trial court granted the Board's motion because it found that Lundy had to make a threshold showing that she could not get her prescription records elsewhere before she was entitled to her INSPECT report from the Board. The trial court certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal.

[¶3] There is a three-part balancing test for discoverable information in a criminal proceeding, but the only consideration at issue here is particularity, which requires a showing that the information is not readily available elsewhere. The Board argues that because Lundy knew where she could " possibly" obtain her prescription records, they were readily available.

Page 658

" Readily available," however, does not equate to knowledge. That is, just because Lundy knew where she could " possibly" obtain her prescription records does not mean that they were " readily available" to her. In addition, the particularity requirement is not to be construed strictly against the defendant but should be administered so as to maximize pretrial discovery. Given that the Board does not challenge the other parts of the test, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the Board's motion to quash Lundy's subpoena. We therefore reverse and remand this case to the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History

[¶4] According to the probable-cause affidavit, on August 8, 2013, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers found a prescription bottle for alprazolam (Xanax) in Lundy's possession. The bottle contained one alprazolam pill but ten hydrocodone ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.