When can defendants compel victim medical records in Utah sexual abuse cases? State v. Wengreen Explained

In State v. Wengreen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed critical questions about accessing privileged medical records and obtaining new trials in sexual abuse prosecutions, establishing important precedent for defense practitioners.

Background and Facts

Defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse of a 13-year-old victim who was babysitting at his home. The prosecution’s case included a pretext phone call where defendant apologized and admitted touching the victim inappropriately. After trial, the victim’s presentence investigation report revealed she had attempted suicide and received psychiatric treatment, during which she provided a more detailed account of the abuse. The report also disclosed allegations of prior abuse by other individuals.

Key Legal Issues

Defendant challenged three trial court rulings: (1) denial of his motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct when an inadmissible portion of the pretext call recording was submitted to the jury; (2) denial of his motion to compel the victim’s post-trial medical records; and (3) denial of his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding the medical records, the court applied the reasonable certainty test from State v. Blake, which requires defendants to show with reasonable certainty that sought-after records actually contain exculpatory evidence. The court emphasized this standard “lies on the more stringent side of ‘more likely than not'” and requires “extrinsic indication that the evidence within the records exists and will, in fact, be exculpatory.”

For newly discovered evidence, the court applied the three-part test requiring evidence that: (1) could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence at trial; (2) is not merely cumulative; and (3) would render a different result probable on retrial. The court distinguished State v. Martin, noting this case had corroborating evidence beyond the victim’s testimony.

Practice Implications

This decision sets a high bar for accessing privileged medical records in sexual abuse cases. Defense counsel must make specific factual allegations rather than general requests for impeachment material. The court noted that general requests “would only open the door to further victimization” of victims. Additionally, when mental health evidence is known during trial, practitioners should pursue discovery before trial rather than seeking new trials based on post-conviction developments.