State v. Guffey

“Oregon cases interpreting Brady have required defendant to make some showing, beyond mere speculation, that the evidence he seeks will be favorable to him and material to his guilt or innocence.” State v. Spada, 33 Or. App. 257, 259, 576 P.2d 33, 34 (1978).

Defendant appealed a judgement of conviction for first-degree sexual assault. Defendant challenged the trial court’s ruling rejecting his pretrial subpoenas and denying his request for school and Department of Human Services (“DHS”) records pertaining to the complainant and his cousin (“IA”), without conducting an in camera review of the records. Defendant argued that all of the records he sought contained favorable and material evidence that were relevant to support his defense and, under Brady, was entitled to disclosure of the records. In response, the State argued that defendant’s assertions did not completely preserve appellate review, arguing that defendant never asserted that he sought the school or DHS records as foundational evidence for his expert witness. “Oregon cases interpreting Brady have required defendant to make some showing, beyond mere speculation, that the evidence he seeks will be favorable to him and material to his guilt or innocence.” State v. Spada, 33 Or. App. 257, 259, 576 P.2d 33, 34 (1978). The Court found that defendant failed to meet his burden of making a threshold showing of materiality and favorability with regards to the school records. However, the Court held that Defendant did make a sufficient threshold showing with regard to IA’s school records, and thus, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s request for an in camera review. Vacated and remanded.