Opinion
ID. No. 1201013293
07-18-2012
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 10th day of July, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
Before the Court is Defendant's motion to file a motion to suppress out of time. On April 17, 2012, this Court issued a scheduling order setting forth a deadline of May 13, 2012 for filing motions to suppress. On May 10, 2012, the State forwarded copies of Defendant's three separately-recorded interviews. Defense counsel claims that additional police reports that were sent by the State on July 17, 2012, were relied upon in the motion to suppress. However, pursuant to Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16(a)(2), police reports are non-discoverable.
See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16(a)(2); Traylor v. State, 620 A.2d 859, at *1 (Del. 1993).
The motion to file out of time was filed on June 27, 2012, over six weeks past the deadline in the scheduling order. Trial in the case is scheduled for July 12, 2012. "Untimely motions to suppress need not be considered in the absence of exceptional circumstances." The Court finds no exceptional circumstances in this case warranting consideration of the motion to suppress. Therefore, as this Court has broad discretion to enforce its rules set forth in pretrial orders, the Defendant's motion is DENIED.
Pennewell v. State, 822 A.2d 397, at *1 (Del. 2003) (citing Barnett v. State, 691 A.2d 614, 615 (Del. 1997)).
Miller v. State, 3 A.3d 1098, at *2 (Del. 2010).
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CALVIN L. SCOTT
Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.