Must defendants renew motions for in camera review of privileged records? State v. Hansen Explained

In State v. Hansen, the Utah Supreme Court addressed the preservation requirements for challenging a trial court’s handling of privileged mental health records in criminal cases. The decision provides important guidance for practitioners on when and how to preserve issues involving in camera review of protected materials.

Background and Facts

Hansen was convicted of aggravated kidnaping and rape after an incident where he prevented his victim from leaving his home and sexually assaulted her. The victim had been receiving mental health counseling for depression, anxiety, and ADHD both before and during her acquaintance with Hansen. Prior to trial, Hansen moved for production of the victim’s mental health records, requesting either direct access or in camera review by the court if direct access was denied.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Hansen properly preserved his right to challenge the trial court’s decision to have the prosecutor, rather than the court, review the victim’s privileged mental health records for discoverable material. The court had to determine whether Hansen’s initial motion was sufficient to preserve the issue when he failed to renew his request for in camera review after receiving the State’s findings.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court found that Hansen had waived his right to raise this issue on appeal. The trial court had not made a definitive ruling denying in camera review, but instead determined it needed to first ascertain what records existed. Crucially, the court explicitly told defense counsel that if there were “further issue” or “disagreement” after the State’s review, counsel could “come back” and the court would “revisit that, probably in an in-camera review.” When Hansen failed to pursue this invitation, he failed to preserve the issue for appellate review.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the critical importance of following through on trial court invitations to renew motions. Even when an issue has been initially raised, practitioners must pursue definitive rulings when courts defer decisions and explicitly invite further proceedings. The case also demonstrates that courts may reasonably defer rulings on privileged records when the existence and scope of such records is unknown, making it essential for counsel to maintain vigilance throughout the pretrial process.