State of Minnesota v. Andrew Russell Severtson, A15-1511

Background

In 2013, 11-year-old E.S. accused her father, Andrew Severtson, of multiple sexual assaults; MCRC performed a medical exam including a colposcopic (video) genital exam.
MCRC produced a written report (signed by the nurse and Dr. Levitt) and an exam-room video; the separate colposcopy video remained in MCRC medical records and was not provided to prosecutors.
Prosecutor identified Dr. Levitt as a witness and disclosed her written report and the exam-room video well before trial; Severtson was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
On the second day of trial Dr. Levitt testified about her conclusions based on the colposcopy video; defense then requested the colposcopy video, which the prosecutor said it did not possess.
After the state rested, defense asked the court to order production of the colposcopy video; the court denied the request and refused a continuance.
Severtson also moved pretrial under Paradee for in camera review of any counseling/mental-health records of E.S.; the motion was denied for lack of a plausible showing that such records existed and would be material and favorable.

Issues

Issue	Severtson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the state violated discovery by failing to obtain/produce MCRC colposcopy video after defense requested it at trial	Failure to produce video was a Rule 9.01 violation entitling Severtson to a new trial because the video was material and used by Dr. Levitt	Pretrial disclosures (report and exam-room video) put defense on notice of the colposcopy; prosecutor never possessed the video and had no duty to obtain it on last day of trial; no prejudice	No discovery violation requiring a new trial: disclosures were sufficient and defense was not prejudiced
Whether nondisclosure of the colposcopy video was prejudicial	Video was key evidence; disclosure would have allowed hiring a rebuttal expert and could have changed the verdict	Report disclosed Dr. Levitt’s conclusions long before trial; defense had fair opportunity to secure an expert and made no showing the video would produce different conclusions	No prejudice shown; speculation about a different outcome is insufficient
Whether the district court erred in denying a Paradee in camera review of E.S.’s counseling/mental-health records	Counseling records may contain statements showing coaching, bias, or impeachment material; in camera review is warranted to check privileged material	Defense offered only conjecture and no evidence that records exist or would be favorable; request was a fishing expedition	Denial affirmed: defendant failed to make a plausible showing that records existed and would be material and favorable
Whether Severtson received ineffective assistance or other pro se claims (credibility challenges)	Trial counsel failed to call witnesses; jury credibility determinations were flawed	Strategic witness decisions are counsel’s prerogative; credibility is for the jury; pro se assertions lack record support	Claims rejected: no showing counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial; credibility issues are for the jury

Key Cases Cited

State v. Palubicki, 700 N.W.2d 476 (Minn. 2005) (standards for reviewing discovery violations)
State v. Miller, 754 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 2008) (new trial standard for prejudicial discovery violations)
Gorman v. State, 619 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. App. 2000) (prejudice definition for suppressed evidence)
State v. Paradee, 403 N.W.2d 640 (Minn. 1987) (procedure for in camera review of privileged materials)
State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 1992) (plausible-showing requirement for in camera review)
State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard in discovery; requirement to show how sought material is likely relevant)
State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 2008) (limits on scope of compelled medical record review without plausible showing)
Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 1987) (Strickland standard applied to ineffective-assistance claims)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
State v. Doppler, 590 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 1999) (strategic choice of witnesses falls within counsel’s discretion)
State v. Buckingham, 772 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 2009) (appellate courts defer to jury credibility determinations)
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (appellate review confined to the record)
State v. Ramos, 492 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. App. 1992) (speculation insufficient to show reasonable probability of a different outcome)