Can defendants make preliminary hearing proffers in camera to protect trial strategy? State v. Archibeque Explained

Background and Facts

Isidor Pacomio Archibeque faced seven felony charges for alleged sexual abuse occurring between 2014 and 2017. He subpoenaed his alleged victim, A.W., to testify at his preliminary hearing. A.W. moved to quash the subpoena, triggering the need for Archibeque to demonstrate under State v. Lopez that her testimony was necessary to present specific evidence reasonably likely to defeat the State’s showing of probable cause. The district court granted Archibeque’s request to make this showing through an in camera proffer, ruling that exposing his theory of the case would be prejudicial and violate his constitutional rights.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether a district court may judge the sufficiency of a defendant’s Lopez proffer based solely on an in camera presentation, without affording the State an opportunity to respond. The court also examined whether a defendant’s constitutional rights as a criminal defendant entitle him to make such proffers outside the adversarial process.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing that adversarial proceedings are fundamental to the justice system. The court distinguished this case from typical in camera review scenarios involving discovery disputes over privileged materials. Here, no party sought discovery of purportedly privileged information; instead, Archibeque sought to withhold his own justification for the subpoena. The court found that one-sided proceedings are disfavored because they “deprive the absent party of the right to respond and be heard” and carry “the attendant risk of an erroneous ruling.” The court rejected Archibeque’s constitutional arguments, noting that his rights against self-incrimination and to effective counsel were not implicated since no one was compelling him to disclose anything—disclosure was only required because he chose to issue the subpoena.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that defendants cannot circumvent the adversarial process when making preliminary hearing proffers under Lopez. Defense counsel must be prepared to make their showings in open court and anticipate prosecutorial responses. The ruling reinforces that while defendants generally need not reveal trial strategy, they cannot “have their cake and eat it too” when their own litigation choices require court submissions. Practitioners should expect that compelling alleged victim testimony will require full adversarial proceedings, not protective in camera review.