History:

Amended July 22, 1993, effective October 19, 1993. Compare. — Rule 26.2, Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. Hypnotism of witness. — The defendant must be advised by the state of the fact that a witness has been previously hypnotized and all statements and proceedings relative thereto must be made available to the defendant on request. This requirement goes beyond those concerning discoverable materials for purposes of impeachment, and discoverable statements of witnesses under this rule. Gee v. State, 662 P.2d 103, 1983 Wyo. LEXIS 314 (Wyo. 1983). The trial court’s function is limited to the question of whether the requested material is a “statement” under this rule and, if so, whether it relates to the subject matter of the witness’ testimony. Jones v. State, 568 P.2d 837, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 279 (Wyo. 1977). Access limited to “statements” of wit- ness. — This rule limits access to the state’s files to only those materials which fit in the definition of “statement” of a state’s witness which includes, inter alia, a recording of an oral statement. Jones v. State, 568 P.2d 837, 1977 Wyo. LEXIS 279 (Wyo. 1977). Defendant entitled to specific “state- ment”. — Although a defendant cannot obtain a review or combing of any or all reports having to do with interviews of witnesses, he is entitled to the production of a specific “statement.” Hubbard v. State, 618 P.2d 553, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 315 (Wyo. 1980). As long as statement that of witness. — Since the purpose of obtaining a “statement,” as defined in this rule, is to impeach the witness, the statement must be that of the witness and not an understanding or interpretation of such by an investigator or other person. Hubbard v. State, 618 P.2d 553, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 315 (Wyo. 1980). And not simply police reports. — Where there is nothing in the record to reflect that police and investigative reports contain “state- ments,” as such are defined in this rule, or that they are other than the product of law enforce- ment personnel, such are not subject to discov- ery. Hubbard v. State, 618 P.2d 553, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 315 (Wyo. 1980). And in any event, proper foundation must be laid by defendant, consisting of specificity as to the “statement” alleged to exist. Hubbard v. State, 618 P.2d 553, 1980 Wyo. LEXIS 315 (Wyo. 1980). But, on denial by state, court deter- mines issues. — If the defendant makes a