State v. Lammi, 380 P.3d 1257

Defendant convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his daughter; during trial he subpoenaed the victim’s counseling records seeking an in camera review for exculpatory statements.
Trial court denied the request, concluding defendant had not made a sufficient threshold showing that the records contained relevant evidence.
On appeal this court (Lammi) held the threshold showing was sufficient to justify in camera review and vacated and remanded for that review and any follow-up proceedings.
The state petitioned for reconsideration, not disputing the sufficiency finding but arguing that, under Frease (adopting the Zolin framework), a sufficient threshold showing does not compel a court to conduct an in camera review — the decision remains discretionary.
The court granted reconsideration, clarified that Zolin/Frease make the post-threshold decision discretionary, but held that in the particular circumstances of this case it would be an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse the in camera review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sufficient threshold showing compels an in camera review of privileged materials	State: threshold is prerequisite but does not compel review; trial court has discretion under Zolin/Frease	Lammi (defendant/appellant): sufficient threshold entitles the party to in camera review	Court: Making the threshold showing is necessary but not automatically dispositive; post-threshold review is discretionary under Zolin/Frease, but here discretion could not permissibly be exercised to deny review
Standard for reviewing the sufficiency of a threshold showing	State: argued threshold-sufficiency review is abuse-of-discretion	Lammi: sufficiency is a question of law under Frease	Court: Sufficiency of the threshold showing is a question of law (Frease); the subsequent discretionary decision is reviewable for abuse of discretion
Whether remand should leave trial court able to decline review	State: requested modification to allow trial court discretion on remand	Lammi: sought mandate for in camera review on remand	Court: Declined to give trial court discretionary choice on remand because, given stakes and facts (possible exculpatory statements, lack of voluminous records, no alternative sources), denying review would be an abuse of discretion

Frease v. Glazer, 330 Or. 364, 4 P.3d 56 (2000) (adopts Zolin framework for in camera review of allegedly privileged materials)
United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989) (sets factors and framework for deciding whether to conduct in camera review after a threshold showing)
State v. Lammi, 278 Or. App. 690, 375 P.3d 547 (2016) (appellate decision clarifying threshold and discretionary aspects of in camera review; remand for review in this case)