Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A trial court did not err in excluding and redacting portions of a journal from a college student in a case involving another student who was charged with sexual battery, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has ruled.
Isaac Plouch and P.M. — both students at Valparaiso University — were in a romantic relationship from spring 2019 until later in the fall of that year.
P.M. alleged that in November 2019, after the relationship ended, she agreed to drive Plouch to his residence after an event on campus.
P.M. alleged that Plouch touched her and tried to kiss her several times during the trip, and that she told him no.
She alleged that Plouch grabbed the steering wheel, causing P.M. to drive off of the road. Plouch then put the car in park, P.M. alleged, grabbed her by the hair and forced her into a sexual act.
P.M. reported the incident to university officials. A campus police detective interviewed her in March 2020, and P.M. provided a handwritten journal that described the incident.
The state charged Plouch in October 2021 with Level 6 felony sexual battery.
During discovery, Plouch learned that P.M. gave her journal to police. He filed a motion for specific discovery and requested the state to “produce the entire journal.” Plouch said only four partially redacted pages had been provided to him and desired to review the entire journal because it documented the course of his sexual relationship with P.M.
The state responded that P.M.’s journal contains “multiple pages of extremely personal and private material.”
The state requested that the trial court conduct an in camera review of the journal and determine what additional journal entries and pages, if any, should be provided to Plouch.
The trial court issued an order stating that it had reviewed the journal and concluded any exculpatory information in the journal must be provided to the defense, as well as information regarding P.M.’s sexual conduct with Plouch.
The trial court also indicated the journal contained a “wealth of irrelevant evidence” Plouch wasn’t entitled to.
Ultimately, the court determined 13 pages of the journal — with redactions — would be provided to Plouch.
Plouch objected, but the trial court ruled that while the Rape Shield Statute does not operate as a privilege to preclude discovery, the principles supporting it are consistent with Indiana Trial Rule 26, which allows a court to limit discovery to protect a person’s privacy.
Plouch appealed the court’s determination on interlocutory appeal, arguing the trial court erred in excluding and redacting portions of P.M.’s journal.
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
“Because the trial court conducted an in camera review of the journal and determined that it had released the relevant information contained therein to Plouch, we cannot say that denying Plouch’s request to review P.M.’s journal in its entirety was an abuse of discretion,” the opinion says.
The appellate court also determined Plouch was wrong to contend that the trial court maintained the Rape Shield Statute operates to preclude discovery.
“Rather,” the opinion says, “the trial court pointed out that it is T.R. 26(C)(1) that permits the court to prohibit discovery to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.”
Plouch also challenged the trial court’s denial of his discovery request, but the Court of Appeals ruled he waived the argument because the complete journal isn’t in the record and Plouch didn’t petition the court for an in camera review of the journal.
Chief Judge Robert Altice wrote the opinion. Judges Melissa May and Peter Foley concurred.
The case is Isaac Wesley Plouch v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-436.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.