State v. C.P.

A victim’s participatory right under the Oregon Constitution does not encompass a right to discovery, a right to present evidence, a right to cross-examine the adjudicated youth, or the power to, in effect, control the prosecution of the case against the youth.

During C.P.’s juvenile court proceedings, the victim’s ORS 419A.258 motion to inspect and copy a psychological report and a juvenile court counselor’s report was granted on the grounds that the victim’s constitutional right to be heard at the delinquency disposition gave rise to a “legitimate need.” C.P. appealed the order, contending the juvenile court erred in reaching its conclusion. The State responded by arguing that the statute’s plain text demonstrates that the legislature intended for the interests of victims to be “on par with those of parties to a juvenile proceeding when it comes to the disclosure of confidential documents.” A victim’s participatory right under the Oregon Constitution does not encompass a right to discovery, a right to present evidence, a right to cross-examine the adjudicated youth, or the power to, in effect, control the prosecution of the case against the youth. The victim was not a party, so neither she nor her lawyer could participate in testing evidence through examination or cross-examination, and her asserted “need” for that purpose was therefore diminished. Even though the victim’s rights to participate and to prepare were legitimate, they alone did not create a “need” to inspect the requested records. Reversed and remanded.