422 P.3d 293
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Child (V) alleged sexual abuse by defendant after a sleepover; disclosure led to CAC forensic interview and criminal indictment for first-degree sexual abuse.
- Defendant subpoenaed V's and cousin IA's school records and IA's DHS records; records were quashed as confidential and defendant sought in camera review under Brady.
- Defense argued records could show IA's prior sexualized behavior, exposure of V to pornography, behavioral changes/IEP status, motive/bias from church dispute, and flaws in CAC interviewer Wimalasena’s investigation.
- Trial court denied in camera review, finding defendant failed to show relevance or materiality and that much information was already available in discovery; trial proceeded and defendant was convicted.
- On appeal, the court applied the two-step Brady in camera-review framework: (1) threshold showing that records likely contain favorable, material evidence; (2) trial court discretion to review records in camera balancing confidentiality and other factors.
- Court held defendant failed the threshold for V’s school records and IA’s DHS records, but succeeded for IA’s school records; remanded for the trial court to decide whether to review IA’s school records in camera and, if Brady material is found, grant a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by quashing subpoenas and denying in camera review under Brady | State: records are confidential and defendant failed to make threshold showing of materiality/favorability | Defendant: school/DHS records likely contain impeachment/exculpatory evidence (IA’s sexualized behavior, pornography exposure, behavioral changes, motive/bias, inadequate CAC investigation) | Mixed: denial upheld for V’s school records and IA’s DHS records; error for IA’s school records—remand for discretionary in camera review |
| Whether IA’s DHS records were relevant to attack CAC interviewer’s adequacy | State: no obligation for interviewer to independently corroborate household info; records not shown to be relevant | Defendant: DHS records would show IA’s abuse/behavior and undermine completeness of CAC’s assessment | Held: defendant failed to show how DHS records would impeach or be material; no in camera review required |
| Whether V’s school records contained material Brady evidence (behavioral changes/IEP/no-contact directives) | State: defendant already had relevant discovery; records unlikely qualitatively different or material | Defendant: records could show behavior changes, IEP status, or school no-contact directives relevant to bias and timing | Held: speculative and duplicative; threshold not met for in camera review |
| Whether IA’s school records could contain materially favorable evidence (pornography/sexualized conduct) | State: argued irrelevant to guilt and largely in discovery already | Defendant: school records likely to contain detailed, qualitatively different documentation (DHS/police reports referenced such incidents) useful to impeach V/Jones and show V’s sexual knowledge | Held: threshold met; trial court erred in denying request without proper discretionary balancing—remand for in camera review |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishes prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (favorable evidence includes impeachment; introduces materiality standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (defines "reasonable probability" standard for Brady materiality)
- State v. Covington, 291 Or. App. 514 (2018) (two-step test for in camera review: threshold showing then discretionary review)
- State v. Lammi, 278 Or. App. 690 (2016) (discusses threshold showing for privileged records review)
- State v. Lammi, 281 Or. App. 96 (2017) (clarifies factors for discretionary in camera review)