Cited by

counter was “just a really, really bad sexual experience.” She testified that she went to the emergency room “about a week 1 A Paradee motion allows defendants in criminal trials to ask the court for an in-camera review of the complainant’s otherwise confidential or privileged records for discovery that may be relevant and material to the issues in the case, pursuant to State v. Paradee

(ruling that criminal-sexual-conduct defendants may request t hat the court conduct an in-camera examination of confidential records and provide any relevant records to the parties).

Here, it is undisputed by the parties that the records at issue are confidential.1 In such cases, the court must strike a balance between a criminal defendant’s right to obtain evidence that ma y be helpful to his defense and an individual’s interest in having her “confidences kept.”

When a criminal defendant requests protected records “the district court may screen the confidential reco rds in camera to balance the right of the defendant to prepare and present a defense ag ainst the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy.” ().

11 Yildirim counters that he need only make the “plausible showing” required by our decisions in State v. Paradee , and State v. Hummel , to extract the cell phone data and provide it to the court for in camera review, and that by doing so , compliance with a subpoena cannot be unreasonable.

This approach “strikes a fairer balance between the interest of the privilege holder in having his confidences kept and the interest of the criminal defendant in obtaining all relevant evidence that might help in his defense.” ).

3 See State v. Paradee , (hold ing that the “in camera approach strikes a fairer balance between the interest of the privilege holder in having his confidences kept and the interest of the criminal defendant in obtaining all relevant evidence that might help in his defense”).

and a same aged friend engaged in touching.” The next day, appellant moved to continue the trial to conduct discovery concerning the other-touching evidence or, in the alternative

the district court may screen the confidential records in camera to balance the right of the defendant to prepare and present a defense against the rights of victims and witnesses to privacy.” Hokanson, d at 349 ().

(ruling that criminal-sexual-conduct defendants may seek in-camera examination of confidential records and provide any relevant records to the parties).

In support of his request, he relies on two cases, both of which arose in the context of how to treat privileged and confidential material.

“This approach ‘strikes a fairer balance between the interest of the privilege holder in having his confidences kept and the interest of the criminal defendant in obtaining all relevant evidence that might help in his defense.’” Evans, d at 872 ().

When a defendant seeks access to material that is private and protected from disclosure, such as the statutorily protected intake assessment in this case, the district court conducts an in camera review of the confidential records to determine if the records contain “relevant evidence that might help in his defense.” d 640, 642 (Minn. 1987).

UNPUBLISHED OPINION RODENBERG, Judge Appellant appeals from his criminal sexual conduct convictions, and that the district court erred at trial when it admitted evidence relating to herpes diagnoses of both appellant and the victim.

Treadwell argues that the district court abused its discretion by withholding some of E.W.’s

The district court’s in camera review of confidential records, “like any other determination by the trial court, is subject ultimately to judicial review.”

“‘The in camera approach strikes a fairer balance between the interest of the privilege holder in having his confidences kept and the interest of the criminal defendant in obtaining all relevant evidence.’” d 68, 72 (Minn. 1992) (); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1002-03 (1987).