State v. Kellywood, 433 P.3d 1205

Background

Defendant Michael Kellywood was foster parent then adoptive parent to A.K.; charged with multiple sexual offenses for conduct when A.K. was 11–14 (2012–2015).
At trial the case largely turned on A.K.’s testimony; the jury convicted Kellywood on multiple counts and he received life plus additional terms.
Kellywood moved to compel the State to produce A.K.’s medical, counseling, DCS, school records, social-media and electronic records, arguing they might contain exculpatory or impeaching statements; he later withdrew parts of the motion but sought in camera review of medical and counseling records for the time A.K. lived in his home.
Trial court denied the motion; Kellywood appealed arguing a “reasonable possibility” existed that those records contained exculpatory statements (e.g., denials of abuse).
The majority upheld the denial, applying the Victims’ Bill of Rights, physician/psychologist privileges, and requiring more than speculative assertions to compel records for in camera review; a dissent would have ordered in camera review under the “reasonable possibility” standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kellywood)	Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court)	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying motion to compel A.K.’s medical/counseling records for in camera review	Records may contain exculpatory/impeaching statements (e.g., denials when directly asked) and thus there is a "reasonable possibility" they bear on credibility	Victim rights and provider privileges protect records; defendant’s showing was speculative and did not identify providers, records, or specific circumstances	Denial affirmed: defendant failed to show the non‑insubstantial burden of a reasonable possibility; speculation insufficient given victims’ rights and privileges
Whether withdrawing a motion waived or preserved challenge to other records (DCS, school, social media, searches, texts)	These records would bear on A.K.’s credibility and possibly contain exculpatory material	Defendant withdrew requests; State not obligated to obtain records not in its possession or control absent a specific showing under Rule 15.1	No reversible (fundamental) error: withdrawal limits review; no evidence DCS or other records contained Brady material
Whether due process/Brady required broader disclosure from State or directly from victim	Defendant invoked due process and Brady to obtain material that might negate guilt	Brady obligation extends to material in prosecutor’s possession/control; victim’s constitutional discovery right to refuse is strong absent a qualifying showing	Court assumed records not in State’s control and resolved on sufficiency of defendant’s showing; no Brady violation shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. 324 (App.) (standard for viewing facts in light most favorable to verdict)
State v. Fields, 196 Ariz. 580 (App.) (trial court has broad discretion on discovery; speculation insufficient)
State v. Burgett, 226 Ariz. 85 (App.) (error of law is abuse of discretion)
State v. Sarullo, 219 Ariz. 431 (App.) (victim may be compelled to produce treatment records for in camera review only upon showing a "reasonable possibility" of due-process entitling information)
State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court (Roper), 172 Ariz. 232 (App.) (due process can override victim discovery rights where specific facts show necessity; in camera review permitted under particular circumstances)
State v. Connor, 215 Ariz. 553 (App.) (limits of Roper; defendant must present sufficiently specific basis for in camera review)
State v. Hatton, 116 Ariz. 142 (1977) (mere conjecture that information might be useful is insufficient)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)