R.S./s.E. v. Hon. thompson/teddy Vanders, 485 P.3d 1068

Teddy Carl Vanders was charged with second-degree murder for killing his girlfriend, M.S.; he claimed justification, asserting he feared her due to prior violence and mental-health issues.
Vanders sought in-camera review of M.S.’s 2011 Magellan Hospital mental-health records from a prior domestic incident in which she was hospitalized after expressing suicidal ideation and assaulting him.
The trial court ordered in-camera review under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.1(g), relying on prior Arizona precedent allowing court review where due process requires it.
M.S.’s siblings (Victims) filed a special action; the Arizona Court of Appeals held the defendant must show a “substantial probability” the records contain critical information and denied relief, treating the VBR/statutory privilege as prevailing.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split among appellate panels and to decide the correct standard for compelling in-camera inspection of privileged victim mental-health records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant's federal due process right can overcome a victim's VBR/statutory physician-psychologist privilege.	Victims: No countervailing constitutional right supersedes VBR and statutory privileges.	Vanders: Due process/right to present a complete defense can require access to privileged records.	Held: Due process can prevail; court must balance interests and may order in-camera review if constitutional need shown.
What standard governs a defendant's entitlement to in-camera review of privileged mental-health records?	Victims/App. Ct.: Require a high “substantial probability” showing that records are critical.	Vanders: Apply the "reasonable possibility" standard (Roper/Connor line).	Held: Adopted the "reasonable possibility" standard—defendant must show reasonable possibility records contain material or necessary evidence (more than speculation).
Whether Vanders met the standard for the Magellan Hospital records.	Victims: 2011 records are remote, cumulative, and insufficiently tied to the defense.	Vanders: Records likely corroborate prior violence, diagnosis, and his fear—relevant to justification.	Held: Trial court did not abuse its discretion; Vanders showed a reasonable possibility, so in-camera review was proper.

State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 172 Ariz. 232 (App. 1992) (early Arizona precedent allowing in-camera review where due process demands).
State v. Connor, 215 Ariz. 553 (App. 2007) (articulated "reasonable possibility" standard for in-camera review).
R.S. v. Thompson, 247 Ariz. 575 (App. 2019) (Court of Appeals decision requiring "substantial probability"—vacated here).
Fox-Embrey v. Neal, 249 Ariz. 162 (App. 2020) (applied "reasonable possibility" standard; highlighted appellate split).
State v. Kellywood, 246 Ariz. 45 (App. 2018) (clarified that mere speculation is insufficient to meet the burden).
State v. Sarullo, 219 Ariz. 431 (App. 2008) (victim medical records are generally protected; defendant must show a basis).
United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989) (a lower showing suffices to trigger in-camera review than to overcome a privilege).
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (recognized that absolute privileges may yield to specific needs in criminal prosecutions).
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (due process includes meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense).
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (state must provide access to "raw materials" necessary for effective defense).
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (Confrontation Clause does not create broad pretrial discovery rights).
Clements v. Bernini, 249 Ariz. 434 (2020) (applied a Zolin-like standard for in-camera review of potentially privileged materials).