State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1549

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Arron Whitney McDole,
Appellant.

Filed August 12, 2019
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-16-22540

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin Coun ty Attorney, Nicole Cornale, A ssistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Tyler Bliss, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Cleary, C hief Judge; and
Cochran, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
In this direct appeal from a final judgment of conviction, appe llant Arron Whitney
McDole argues that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to conduct an in

2
camera review of D.M.’s school records. Because McDole did not make a plausible
showing that the information sought would be material to his defense and his request was
not reasonably specific, we affirm.
FACTS
This case arose after McDole’s seven-year-old d aughter, D.M., began having
weekly meetings with a school social worker. At one of these m eetings, D.M. told the
social worker that she was feeling uncomfortable at home. When the social worker asked
why she was uncomfortable, D.M. initially stated that McDole wa s sick, but as the
conversation continued, she told the social worker about a time when McDole forced her
to touch his penis. The social worker reported this allegation to Hennepin County Child
Protection.
After an investigation, the state charged McDole with second-de gree criminal
sexual conduct. While preparing for trial, McDole moved the di strict court to review
D.M.’s school records from her former and current elementary sc hools in camera. He
argued that there was good cause to review the school records b ecause they might reveal
information about D.M.’s “state of mind concerning her home lif e and her family.”
McDole claimed that D.M. was supposed to give a school presentation about him, but she
changed schools prior to the pre sentation. McDole asserted tha t this presentation and
D.M.’s therapy records from school would be useful in determini ng her feelings toward
him and would help show that he and D.M. had a positive, healthy relationship.
McDole also argued that the recor ds would explain why the socia l worker began
speaking with D.M. He explained that if the social worker had approached D.M. for

3
reasons other than concern for her home life, then that informa tion would be useful to his
defense. The state objected to the motion, calling it a “non-specific fishing expedition.”
The district court denied McDole’s motion, concluding that he failed to establish a
sufficient basis for in camera review. It reasoned that McDole did not explain why D.M.’s
state of mind was material to his defense. The district court also found that the “reasons
behind D.M.’s involvement with counselors unrelated to the abuse [were] irrelevant,” and
that the school presentation “would not weigh on the central facts unless it [had] something
to do with the alleged abuse.” The case proceeded to trial. The first trial resulted in a hung
jury, but after the second trial, the jury found McDole guilty.
D E C I S I O N
McDole argues that the district court erred when it failed to c onduct an in camera
review of D.M.’s school records. “Criminal defendants have a broad right to discovery in
order to prepare and present a defense.” State v. Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d 340, 349 (Minn.
2012). At the same time, educational data, including school and health data, are generally
protected from disclosure by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Minn. Stat.
§§ 13.01, subd. 2, .32 subd. 1(a ), subd. 2(a), subd. 3 (2018). In order to strike a balance
between a criminal defendant’s right to obtain evidence that may be helpful to his defense
and an individual’s interest in h aving her confidences kept, wh en a defendant seeks to
discover confidential records, the district court may review th e records in camera and
disclose any relevant information it finds. State v. Paradee, 403 N.W.2d 640, 642 (Minn.
1987).

4
A criminal defendant, however, does not have an absolute right to in camera review.
Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d at 349. To obtain in camera review, a defendant m ust first make
some plausible showing that the information sought will be mate rial and favorable to his
defense. State v. Hummel , 483 N.W.2d 68, 72 (Minn. 1992). The request must also be
reasonably specific. State v. Lynch , 443 N.W.2d 848, 852 (Minn. App. 1989), review
denied (Minn. Sept. 15, 1989). Appellate courts review a district co urt’s decision on the
release and use of protected records for an abuse of discretion. Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d at
349.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discreti on when it declined to
conduct an in camera review of D.M.’s school records because Mc Dole did not make a
plausible showing that the information sought would be material. At the district court, he
argued that it was “vital to learn as much as possible about [D .M.’s] state of mind around
the time of the alleged assault,” but as the district court fou nd, McDole failed to explain
why D.M.’s state of mind was relevant. He further suggested th at the records may show
that D.M. had positive feelings toward him, but he did not explain how these feelings would
tie-in to a defense or weigh on the issues of the case.
McDole also argued that it would be helpful to know why the social worker reached
out to D.M. in the first place. He speculated that the worker may have contacted D.M.
because she was struggling in school, and not because of concerns over D.M.’s home life.
He argued that if this was true, then this information would be useful to his defense. Here
too, McDole failed to explain why the information would be useful to his defense or how
it was relevant to the issues in the case. McDole “offered only argument and conjecture,”

5
which is insufficient to obtain in camera review. State v. Evans , 756 N.W.2d 854, 873
(Minn. 2008). What is more, McDole’s request to have the distr ict court review all of
D.M.’s school records from two schools was not reasonably specific.
On appeal, McDole argues that the records would have “contextu alized facts,
provide[d] impeachment evidence [,] and provide[d] prior inconsi stent statements.”
Specifically, McDole argues that the records could have allowed him to impeach D.M. and
the social worker. These arguments were not presented to the d istrict court, and we will
not consider them. See Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (stating appellate
courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court,
including constitutional questions of criminal procedure”); State v. Carroll , 639 N.W.2d
623, 629 n.3 (Minn. App. 2002) (“A party may not obtain review by raising the same issue
under a different theory.”).
Affirmed.