State v. Covington

When determining if an in camera review is required, the defendant must “demonstrate that the items of which he sought review would have been material and favorable to his defense” and the trial court must decide whether to undertake that review considering “the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the volume of materials at issue, the relative importance of information sought, and whether such information might be available from non-privileged sources.” State v. Cockrell, 284 Or App 674 (2017), State v. Lammi, 278 Or App 690 (2017).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for six counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to conduct an in camera review of grand juror notes. On appeal, Defendant argued that the Due Process Clause, which he invoked, required the State to disclose evidence that is in the State’s possession and that is material and favorable to Defendant and that he made a sufficient showing when he addressed the inconsistencies in the testimonies. In response, the State argued that Defendant failed to make a sufficient showing that established that the evidence was material and favorable. When determining if an in camera review is required, the defendant must “demonstrate that the items of which he sought review would have been material and favorable to his defense” and the trial court must decide whether to undertake that review considering “the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the volume of materials at issue, the relative importance of information sought, and whether such information might be available from non-privileged sources.” State v. Cockrell, 284 Or App 674 (2017), State v. Lammi, 278 Or App 690 (2017). The Court held that a sufficient showing for review was made because the testimonies were inconsistent and the only way to impeach the inconsistency, given the facts of the case, was through the grand juror notes. Vacated and remanded.