finding that because a video and photograph showed the child’s condition “before trial and reflected the long-term effects of the injuries [he] had sustained,” they were “relevant to the issue of the victim’s serious injury”
How later courts described this case
- finding that because a video and photograph showed the child’s condition “before trial and reflected the long-term effects of the injuries [he] had sustained,” they were “relevant to the issue of the victim’s serious injury”
- stating “all that is required is some plausible theory founded in demonstrable fact that suggests the information in the mental health records might well prove helpful to the defense”
- discussing Iowa Code Ann. § 622.10, amended in 2011, providing for an in camera review of privileged information in a criminal trial ''[u]pon a showing of a reasonable probability that the privileged records sought may likely contain exculpatory information that is not available from any other source”
- requiring substantial evidence that the abettor “assented to or lent countenance and approval to the criminal act either by active participation or by some manner encouraging it prior to or at the time of its commission” (quoting State v. Spates, 779 N.W.2d 770, 780 (Iowa 2010))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CADY, C.J.
(concurring specially).
I concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to express my view that the statutory standard for judicial review of confidential records under Iowa Code section 622.10(4) (Supp.2011) should be given its definition through the application of facts on a case-by-case basis. As this case and State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470, 484 (Iowa 2013), illustrate, the facts are what should breathe meaning into the “reasonable probability” standard, and this standard will continue to gain greater clarity in the future as additional cases continue to give it shape.