case at hand, and is written to Chief Caldwell regarding numerous issues with the case. Rule 5(a)(2) SCRCrimP, exempts from discovery work product, or “internal prosecution documents made by the attorney for the prosecution or other prosecution agents in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case____” In essence, Rule 5 SCRCrimP exempts “internal prosecution documents made in connection with an investigation.” State v. Hughes, 336 S.C. 585, 521 S.E.2d 500 (1999). The July letter clearly falls into the exemption under Rule 5. The letter was written to the North Charleston Chief of Police regarding the prosecution of the case. Thus, the July letter was an internal prosecution document and not subject to discovery. See State v. Gill, 319 S.C. 283, 460 S.E.2d 412 (1995)(<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, State v. Gill, 327
holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report holding that accident report provided by railroad company employee did not qualify as business record where essentially prepared for use in litigating not in railroading holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness holding that a summary report prepared by police officers for the solicitors use in prosecuting the case was not subject to discovery holding that the existence and content of a police report are not properly the subject of judicial notice