Commonwealth v. Labroad, 2 N.E.3d 869

Defendant convicted of rape of a child after a second trial following mistrial.
Defendant sought pretrial production of complainant’s psychological records under Mass. R. Crim. P. 17(a)(2).
Motion denied; Appeals Court affirmed; Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and remanded.
Records contemplated were in the custody of the complainant’s psychologist; psychologist had disclosed to police the complainant’s statements about the incident.
Court applies Dwyer/Lampron protocol for evaluating privileged-record production and requires a particularized showing of relevance.
Remand instructed: defense to have access to records for evaluating whether pretrial production would have affected fairness; defendants may later file relief motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dwyer protocol governs pretrial production of third-party records	Commonwealth argues protocol applies and requires proper showing.	La-broad contends protocol limits access to privileged records absent showing.	Yes; protocol governs production analysis.
Whether the defendant’s showing satisfied Dwyer’s threshold that records have rational relevance	Commonwealth contends alleged disclosures to psychologist are relevant to defense.	La-broad asserts insufficient particularity and relevance.	Defendant’s showing met the particularized standard for records of the disclosure.
Whether records relating to the complainant’s report of sexual assault meet Dwyer’s requirements	Commonwealth argues disclosures about the assault are material.	La-broad argues broad or speculative relevance is insufficient.	Yes; records tied to the complainant’s specific disclosure are admissible to impeachment/substantive purposes.
Whether the denial of production was reversible error requiring remand	Commonwealth asserts error unresolved without access to records.	La-broad argues record access not essential for appellate review.	Remand for proceedings consistent with Dwyer; defense may obtain documents for fairness assessment.

Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 122 (2006) (outlines Dwyer protocol for pretrial production and good-cause requirements)
Commonwealth v. Lampron, 441 Mass. 265 (2004) (special-protection framework for privileged records under Rule 17(a)(2))
Commonwealth v. Bourgeois, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 433 (2007) (emphasizes particularity required to show relevancy of privileged records)
Martin v. Commonwealth, 451 Mass. 113 (2008) (specific showing of relevancy supports production)
Commonwealth v. Pelosi, 441 Mass. 257 (2004) (Bishop-Fuller protocol reference for appellate consideration of record production)
Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 431 Mass. 609 (2000) (earlier guidance on privileged-records and appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Sheehan, 435 Mass. 183 (2001) (contrast on appellate review availability of records)