Motion for discovery of the complainant’s psychological records; People v Davis-Christian; People v Stanaway; People v Caruso

On remand from the Supreme Court for consideration as on leave granted, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for discovery of the complainant’s (CS) psychological records, and that an in camera review of the records was appropriate. Thus, it reversed and remanded for an in camera review of the records. The parties analogized the case to Stanaway and its companion case, Caruso. The court found that the facts here were “closer to Caruso than Stanaway. Defendant sought discovery because the prosecution introduced CS’s mental status into the case although it was not relevant to an element of the charged offenses. CS has been evaluated multiple times and has not been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Nonetheless, his mother told the police that he was ‘on the spectrum.’” A doctor’s (W) “2016 psychological report states that CS’s need for SSI benefits had recently ‘been called into question,’ and she wanted CS’s ‘difficulties documented so that he may again receive assistance.’ In contrast to [W’s] 2016 evaluation, her 2023 letter was a short, one-paragraph document, and was rather general, leaving CS’s current level of functioning a matter of debate. In addition, [W’s] 2016 evaluation referenced several previous evaluations, and [W] stated in her 2023 letter that CS was her client, and she had been working with him on a regular basis since 2016.” The court determined that, considering “the prosecution’s intent to use evidence of CS’s mental state to establish his purported susceptibility to victimization, defendant has shown a reasonable probability that the records at issue contain information material to his defense, particularly since the 2016 report is ten years old and the 2023 letter sheds little light on whether CS is particularly susceptible to victimization.”