State v. Weisbarth
2016 MT 214
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Defendant David Weisbarth was convicted of felony incest based principally on the testimony of his five-year-old daughter, T.W.; sentenced to 100 years (50 suspended).
- T.W. had a prior diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder and treatment records from child specialists (Drs. Krajacich and Pike). Defense notified intent to call an expert (Dr. Veraldi) to testify about that disorder and moved to compel T.W.’s medical records. The district court ordered production.
- The State obtained T.W.’s medical records, then provided only heavily redacted excerpts (a single sentence indicating a likely diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder) and successfully moved to seal the records without an in camera review. The prosecutor did not disclose exculpatory material.
- At trial, defense expert had not reviewed the records; cross-examination of the expert was undermined by the prosecutor’s emphasis that no evidence supported T.W. lying or fabrication. The jury convicted.
- After trial Weisbarth obtained the sealed records, which disclosed substantially more: evidence of psychotic symptoms (hallucinations/‘breakdown in reality’), repeated lying/deceptive behavior, a prior alleged (and recanted) sexual-abuse claim, reduced medication near the time of the disclosure, and major family upheaval contemporaneous with the allegation.
- Weisbarth appealed, arguing a Brady violation based on the State’s suppression of materially exculpatory/impeachment medical records; the Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression of T.W.’s medical records violated due process (Brady) | State: redactions/protection of victim privacy were appropriate; some material may be inadmissible, and defense could have sought records with diligence | Weisbarth: records contained impeachment/exculpatory evidence the State suppressed; he exercised reasonable diligence and relied on court/State representations | Court: Yes—State suppressed favorable impeachment evidence; suppression was material and prejudicial; reversal and new trial ordered |
| Whether inadmissible evidence in records can trigger Brady disclosure | State: inadmissible evidence is not Brady material because it cannot be used at trial | Weisbarth: inadmissible material can still lead to admissible evidence and affect defense strategy | Court: Adopted majority approach—admissibility is not dispositive; evidence need only be favorable and potentially outcome-determinative |
| Whether defendant failed to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain records | State: defense could have obtained or pursued records further | Weisbarth: he sought court-ordered production and relied on State’s representations; thus exercised diligence | Court: Weisbarth exercised reasonable diligence; State’s representations thwarted further defense efforts |
| Appropriate remedy when State fails to disclose sealed records on appeal | State: remand for in camera inspection rather than reversal | Weisbarth: records are in the appellate record so review and reversal are appropriate | Court: Because records are in the appellate record, appellate review is proper and reversal with remand for new trial is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (materiality standard: evidence that could put whole case in different light undermining confidence in verdict)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (even evidence not directly admissible may have substantial value to the defense)
- McGarvey v. State, 375 Mont. 495 (Mont.; describing Brady elements and materiality considered collectively)
- State v. Ring, 374 Mont. 109 (Mont.; prior false accusation admissible only if proven or admitted false and requires hearing outside jury)