State v. Brian Johnston
2014 MT 329
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Brian Anthony Johnston was charged with multiple counts including incest, solicitation, and sexual abuse of children and convicted in Lake County District Court.
- Johnston moved to compel discovery of Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) case files for the two victims; the District Court denied the motion without conducting an in camera review.
- The State opposed production, arguing (1) Johnston did not request in camera review below and (2) the prosecutor did not possess the DPHHS files.
- Montana law (§ 41-3-205) restricts disclosure of DPHHS child-abuse records to specified recipients; only the prosecutor and the court are authorized recipients for criminal cases.
- The Supreme Court found Johnston’s motion sufficient to invoke his right to potentially exculpatory material in DPHHS files and ordered remand for the District Court to perform an in camera review and enter findings regarding disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may seek in camera review on appeal after failing to request it below | Johnston forfeited the issue by not requesting in camera review | Reply: State had proposed in camera review below and relied on authorities supporting it; denial cited State brief | Court rejected State's forfeiture argument and allowed remand for in camera review |
| Whether prosecutor must produce DPHHS files not in her possession | Prosecutor not required to produce files she does not possess; records were with DPHHS | Johnston: prosecutor or court may obtain files; defendant statutorily barred from subpoenaing DPHHS so discovery request proper | Court held possession by prosecutor not required; in camera review is appropriate even if files are with agency |
| Whether defendant could subpoena DPHHS files directly | State: defendant could have subpoenaed files | Johnston: statute bars disclosure to third parties; subpoena would be futile | Court agreed subpoena would be futile because statute forbids disclosure and only prosecutor/court may receive files |
| Whether in camera review is required to balance victim confidentiality and defendant's right to exculpatory evidence | State: balancing concerns may justify denial without review | Johnston: court must inspect files in camera to determine existence of exculpatory material | Court held in camera review is required to determine whether files contain material that must be disclosed and remanded for that review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Little, 260 Mont. 460, 861 P.2d 154 (1993) (district court must conduct in camera inspection of DPHHS/DFS files when relevant to defendant's discovery request)
- State v. Duffy, 300 Mont. 381, 6 P.3d 453 (2000) (district court should review confidential records in camera to balance defendant's rights and victim confidentiality)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (trial court must conduct in camera review of child welfare files that the defendant cannot obtain, to protect due process rights)
- McGarvey v. State, 375 Mont. 495, 329 P.3d 576 (2014) (Brady does not impose a general duty on prosecutor to obtain information held by unrelated agencies)