State v. P. Smith, DA 20-0220

Paul R. Smith was charged in 2018 with multiple sexual offenses against three minors; two victims had DPHHS (formerly CPS/DFS) case files.
Trial was scheduled for August 9, 2019, with discovery and motion-in-limine deadlines set in the Omnibus Order (discovery disputes due July 19; motions in limine due July 11).
Smith first specifically requested DPHHS records on July 25, 2019 (after the discovery-dispute deadline); the State moved in limine July 30 to exclude evidence under the Rape Shield Law.
At a July 31 hearing, Smith asked the district court to order DPHHS records and perform an in camera review; the court denied the request as untimely and because the records were not in the prosecution’s possession.
Smith was convicted at trial; on appeal he requested this Court stay the appeal and remand for an in camera review to complete the record. The State opposed; this Court denied the stay/remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court must conduct an in camera review of DPHHS records to complete the appellate record when defense did not timely seek the records	The State argued the request was untimely and the records were not in its possession, so no obligation to obtain or have the court review them	Smith argued the State’s motion in limine triggered a Lake balancing duty and the court had to obtain and review DPHHS records to determine admissibility	Denied. Court held it had discretion to control discovery and need not review materials the defendant failed to timely request; remand not required
Whether the prosecutor or court must obtain DPHHS records not in the prosecutor’s possession when requested by defendant	The State argued it could not produce what it did not possess and the request was untimely	Smith relied on Little and Johnston to argue the court/prosecutor may be ordered to obtain files and the district court should have compelled an in camera review	Court distinguished Little/Johnston (those involved timely discovery motions). When a defendant properly and timely seeks DPHHS records, an in camera review/duty may arise; but here, because the request was untimely and no motion to compel was filed, no such duty existed

State v. Little, 861 P.2d 154 (1993) (district court ordered to perform in camera review of confidential DFS records when defendant timely sought them)
State v. Johnston, 339 P.3d 829 (2014) (court may order prosecutor to obtain DPHHS files and conduct in camera inspection when motion to compel is properly made)
State v. Lake, 445 P.3d 1211 (2019) (Rape Shield balancing test—district court must balance victim’s statutory protections with defendant’s constitutional rights)
Henricksen v. State, 84 P.3d 38 (2004) (trial court has inherent discretion to control discovery and trial administration)