State Of Washington, Respoondent v. O.c.v., 74254-0

Juvenile charged with one count of first-degree child molestation based on allegations by a 7-year-old (J.S.) of anal intercourse occurring when defendant was 12–13.
J.S. made disclosures to his mother, to a child interview specialist (video recorded May 21, 2013), and to a forensic nurse; statements admitted as child hearsay under Ryan factors.
Medical records from a May 7, 2013 ER visit referenced a mental health evaluation on April 17, 2013 that defense sought; trial court conducted in camera review and denied disclosure under CrR 4.7.
Defense sought CPS/DSHS records after J.S. disclosed parental physical abuse during the May 21 interview, arguing CPS likely investigated and records could bear on credibility and hearsay admissibility.
Trial court denied production and refused in camera review of CPS records because defendant failed to make a particularized factual showing the records likely contained material favorable to the defense; denial was without prejudice.
Juvenile found guilty; on appeal, defendant argued due process required in camera review or disclosure of CPS records and the April 2013 mental health evaluation (which appellate court independently reviewed and found not exculpatory).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether in camera review or disclosure of CPS/DSHS records was required	State: court properly required a particularized showing and did not abuse discretion	Villasenor: CPS records likely contain information affecting J.S.'s credibility and hearsay admissibility because CPS would investigate disclosures of parental abuse	Denied — defendant failed to make particularized factual showing; court did not abuse discretion
Whether April 17, 2013 mental health evaluation must be disclosed	State: court reviewed in camera and found no disclosure required under CrR 4.7	Villasenor: April evaluation likely contains diagnosis/medication info relevant to memory and credibility	Denied — court's in camera review found no exculpatory or material information

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (due process/right to confidential records in criminal cases)
State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 (framework for admitting child hearsay)
State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wn.2d 525 (defendant must make particularized showing to compel in camera review)
State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759 (dependency/DSHS records review required when defendant makes concrete connection to defense theory)
State v. Diemel, 81 Wn. App. 464 (speculative requests for privileged files insufficient for in camera inspection)
State v. Casal, 103 Wn.2d 812 (standards for disclosure of potentially exculpatory records)