State v. Wixom, 366 P.3d 353

Defendant appeals a conviction for one count of first-degree sexual abuse of his stepdaughter.
Before trial, defendant sought in camera review of DHS juvenile dependency records; the court denied the motion with leave to renew.
Defendant also moved to exclude a video CARES interview of the victim; the court denied the motion and the video was shown at trial and in the jury room during deliberations.
Victim, born in 1998, was in foster care after DHS removal from her mother in 2009; she spent weekends at defendant’s home and later lived with him.
DHS disclosed its investigation records but withheld noninvestigatory confidential records; the prosecutor possessed DHS investigation records and disclosed them to defendant.
The contested records concern preexisting foster care/child-dependency history, not the substantiated abuse investigation itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to in camera review of DHS records	Defendant asserts statutory and constitutional entitlement to in camera review.	Warren/135.815/135.873 require in camera review for related records.	No statutory or constitutional entitlement; records not in prosecutor’s control.
Whether ORS 135.815/135.873 compelled in camera review	These statutes allow discovery of favorable material regardless of confidentiality.	They require in camera inspection when confidential DHS foster care records may be favorable.	Do not require in camera review here; records confidential and outside prosecutor’s control.
Constitutional rights to compulsory process/confrontation and due process	Defendant argues rights require disclosure for cross-examination and fair trial.	Rights entitle pretrial access to DHS records for defense.	Rights not violated; records not in prosecutor’s possession and disclosure was not required pretrial.
Admission of CARES interview video and presence in jury room	Video testimony should be excluded as hearsay/confrontation violation; jury-room presence improper under OEC 403.	Video testimony violates ORS 136.420 and OEC 403; placement in jury room improper.	Video properly admitted under ORS 136.420 and OEC 403; jury-room use approved by precedent.

State v. Divito, 330 Or 319 (2000) (discovery standards; legal error review standard cited)
State v. Warren, 304 Or 428 (1987) (prosecutor control of records; discovery scope)
State ex rel Dept. of Human Services v. Hinds, 191 Or App 78 (2003) (CSD/DHS confidentiality considerations)
State ex rel Dugan v. Tiktin, 313 Or 607 (1992) (confidentiality of DHS records; mandamus discussion)
State v. Heisler, 106 Or App 7 (1991) (in camera review and good cause; due process)
State v. Rascon, 269 Or App 844 (2015) (video testimony admissibility under ORS 136.420)
State v. Disney, 260 Or App 685 (2014) (jury access to videotaped testimony during deliberations)
State v. Evans, 260 Or App 270 (2013) (limited use of evidentiary privileges in child-abuse cases)
State v. Sagner, 18 Or App 464 (1974) (limitations on review of voluminous records)
State v. Koennecke, 274 Or 169 (1976) (discovery and materiality requirements)