Dillard test in Indiana

2010See, e.g., Jorgensen v. State, 574 N.E.2d 915 (Ind.1991).

2010See, e.g., Jorgensen v. State, 574 N.E.2d 915 (Ind.1991).

2016We have not previously had occasion to revisit Murphy , 3 but we have upheld and more fully developed the three-part Dillard test several times, most recently in Crawford : “(1) there must be sufficient designation of the items sought to be discovered (particularity); (2) the items requested must be material to the defense (relevance or materiality); and (3) if the first two requirements are met, the trial court must grant the request unless there is a showing of paramount interest in nondisclosure.” 948 N.E.2d at 1168 (emphasis added).

2016We have not previously had occasion to revisit Murphy , 3 but we have upheld and more fully developed the three-part Dillard test several times, most recently in Crawford : “(1) there must be sufficient designation of the items sought to be discovered (particularity); (2) the items requested must be material to the defense (relevance or materiality); and (3) if the first two requirements are met, the trial court must grant the request unless there is a showing of paramount interest in nondisclosure.” 948 N.E.2d at 1168 (emphasis added).

2020The trial court must then evaluate the parties’ evidence and determine whether disclosure is appropriate “by balancing the public interest in encouraging a free flow of information to the authorities with the defendant’s interest in obtaining disclosure to prepare his defense.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). [23] However, when a defendant seeks disclosure of non-privileged information, courts apply the Dillard test, a three-part standard set forth in Dillard v. State, 257 Ind. 282 , 274 N.E.2d 387 (1971), to determine whether the discovery request should be granted: “(1) if there is a suffi

2020The trial court must then evaluate the parties’ evidence and determine whether disclosure is appropriate “by balancing the public interest in encouraging a free flow of information to the authorities with the defendant’s interest in obtaining disclosure to prepare his defense.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). [23] However, when a defendant seeks disclosure of non-privileged information, courts apply the Dillard test, a three-part standard set forth in Dillard v. State, 257 Ind. 282 , 274 N.E.2d 387 (1971), to determine whether the discovery request should be granted: “(1) if there is a suffi

2023See Pruitt, 903 N.E.2d at 939 (explaining that where Pruitt’s affidavit in support of his motion for a change of judge had shown no historical facts that had demonstrated personal bias on the part of the post-conviction court judge, Pruitt had been provided with a full and fair post-conviction relief hearing before an impartial judge). [36] Affirmed.

2023See Garland, 788 N.E.2d at 433 .

2023In Calvert v. State, 498 N.E.2d 105, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), this Court concluded “that a trial judge must disqualify [her]self from a proceeding in which [s]he has actively served as an attorney for one of the parties regardless of whether actual bias or prejudice exists.” Here, although the post-conviction court judge worked in the prosecutor’s office during the investigation of Thomas’ murder and during Dillard’s murder trial, Dillard does not allege that the post-conviction court judge actively served as a deputy prosecutor on Dillard’s case.

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017This Court has made clear that the Dillard test “applies only to discover nonprivileged information.” In re Crisis Connection, Inc., 949 N.E.2d 789, 794 (Ind. 2011).

2017This Court has made clear that the Dillard test “applies only to discover nonprivileged information.” In re Crisis Connection, Inc., 949 N.E.2d 789, 794 (Ind. 2011).

2017See Dillard v. State, 257 Ind. 282, 291-92 , 274 *19 N.E.2d 387, 392 (1971); see also Hale v. State, 54 N.E.3d 355, 358 (Ind. 2016) (referring to the tripartite test as the “Dillard test”).

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2016See Murphy 265 Ind. at 120 , 352 N.E.2d at 482 (“In this case, there was no showing that the defendant’s purpose was not bona fide or that there was any paramount interest of the State in nondisclosure.”).

2016See Murphy 265 Ind. at 120 , 352 N.E.2d at 482 (“In this case, there was no showing that the defendant’s purpose was not bona fide or that there was any paramount interest of the State in nondisclosure.”).