camera hearing in Washington

1986State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006 (1982); State v. Harris, supra. The trial court exercises its discretion in determining whether an in camera hearing should be held; however, such a hearing is necessary if "the defendant makes an initial showing that the confidential informant may have evidence that would be relevant to the defendant's innocence." State v. Potter, 25 Wn.

1980NECESSITY OF HEARING An in camera hearing is necessary only when "the defendant makes an initial showing that the confidential informant may have evidence that would be relevant to the defendant's innocence." State v. Potter, 25 Wn.

1988In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 , 1 L.

1984Ed. 2d 639 , 77 S. Ct. 623 (1957). 3 Casal first argues that, at a minimum, his affidavit presented a sufficient showing to require the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing with the informant concerning the alleged waiver of the privilege.

1986State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006 (1982); State v. Harris, supra. The trial court exercises its discretion in determining whether an in camera hearing should be held; however, such a hearing is necessary if "the defendant makes an initial showing that the confidential informant may have evidence that would be relevant to the defendant's innocence." State v. Potter, 25 Wn.

1986State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006 (1982); State v. Harris, supra. The trial court exercises its discretion in determining whether an in camera hearing should be held; however, such a hearing is necessary if "the defendant makes an initial showing that the confidential informant may have evidence that would be relevant to the defendant's innocence." State v. Potter, 25 Wn.

1990"No hearing is necessary, however, if the accused's reasons for seeking the informant's testimony are only speculative, though the hearing judge should take into consideration the difficulty of explaining in a vacuum why the testimony is crucial." State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006 (1982); see State v. Fredrick, 45 Wn.

1986State v. Cleppe, 96 Wn.2d 373, 382 , 635 P.2d 435 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1006 (1982); State v. Harris, supra. The trial court exercises its discretion in determining whether an in camera hearing should be held; however, such a hearing is necessary if "the defendant makes an initial showing that the confidential informant may have evidence that would be relevant to the defendant's innocence." State v. Potter, 25 Wn.

1984App. 50, 53-54 , 510 P.2d 659 (1973); CrR 4.7(h)(6). 4 An in camera hearing is particularly appropriate in settling disputed questions of the applicability of the informant privilege.

1980A relevancy standard for making the determination of whether to conduct an in camera hearing has two bases: (1) the determination of whether evidence is privileged is a judicial function, Cook v. King County, 9 Wn.

2021State Farm, 199 Wn.

2018She cites to Pappas v. Holloway, as support for her contention that, if the material sought to be discovered is essential to the party's claim or defense, an exception to CR 26(b)(4) should apply.31 But Pappas concerned a legal malpractice action, 27 199 Wn.

2020State v. Petrina, 73 Wn.

2018App. 779 , 871 P.2d 637 (1994), Uiliata asked the trial court to conduct an in camera inquiry to determine whether the CI’s identity should be disclosed.

2015State v. Vazquez, 66 Wn.

1994State v. Vazquez, 66 Wn.

2014After an in camera hearing that included an interview of the juror, the judge found that the postings were in violation of instructions not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, but were "nothing more than harmless ramblings having no prejudicial effect." Id. at 299 .

2014After an in camera hearing that included an interview of the juror, the judge found that the postings were in violation of instructions not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, but were “ ‘nothing more than harmless ramblings having no prejudicial effect.’ ” Id. at 299 .

2013Furthermore, even if the Kinneys had presented information sufficient to cast a reasonable doubt on the veracity of the material 13 For instance, the trial court could easily review the CI's criminal history and other credibility or .reliability factors at an in camera hearing and, if necessary, provide defense counsel with redacted information that would have allowed the Kinneys to challenge the CI's credibility without having to disclose the CI' identity. s No. 43409 1 II 43412 1 II - - / - - representation in the search warrant, "[ he procedure for deciding whether to disclose the t] identi

1992State v. White, 50 Wn.

2005Berrysmith, 87 Wn.

2005Berrysmith, 87 Wash.App. at 276 , 944 P.2d 397 .

2001Stenson, 132 Wn.2d at 730-31 .

2001Stenson, 132 Wn.2d at 731 . 9 The majority rejects Stenson’s claim concerning the lack of representation at the July 13, 1994 in camera hearing “because Wadsworth[ 10 ] may be distinguished from this case.” Majority at 739.

1990Redd , at 606 (citing State v. Uhthoff, 45 Wn.

1988State v. Uhthoff, 45 Wn.

1985United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1975) (holding that the in camera procedure provides an acceptable accommodation of the competing interests of the government and the accused in the situation presented here, wherein the question is whether the law officer has lied); United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that if the trial judge is satisfied that an in camera hearing is adequate to explore the foundations of the informant's information, then no disclosure is neces *819 sary); State v. Haywood, supra; United States v. Kiser, supra; United States v. Brian,

1978See, e.g., United States v. Freund, supra ; United States v. Rawlinson, 487 F.2d 5 (9th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 984 , 39 L.Ed.2d 881 , 94 S.Ct. 1579 (1974); McLawhorn v. North Carolina, 484 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.1973); United States v. Soles, supra ; United States v. Hurse, 453 F.2d 128 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 908 , 38 L.Ed.2d 146 , 94 S.Ct. 245 (1973); United States v. Lloyd, supra ; United States v. Jackson, supra .

1985United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1975) (holding that the in camera procedure provides an acceptable accommodation of the competing interests of the government and the accused in the situation presented here, wherein the question is whether the law officer has lied); United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1974) (holding that if the trial judge is satisfied that an in camera hearing is adequate to explore the foundations of the informant's information, then no disclosure is neces *819 sary); State v. Haywood, supra; United States v. Kiser, supra; United States v. Brian,

1978See, e.g., United States v. Freund, supra ; United States v. Rawlinson, 487 F.2d 5 (9th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 984 , 39 L.Ed.2d 881 , 94 S.Ct. 1579 (1974); McLawhorn v. North Carolina, 484 F.2d 1 (4th Cir.1973); United States v. Soles, supra ; United States v. Hurse, 453 F.2d 128 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 908 , 38 L.Ed.2d 146 , 94 S.Ct. 245 (1973); United States v. Lloyd, supra ; United States v. Jackson, supra .

2025App at 115 (“[W]here the external circumstances support the privilege 2 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 8 No. 85858-1-I/9 claim, an in camera hearing is not required.”) The “may” language in RCW 9.41.801(9)(b) is only relevant if the privilege is not covered under subsection (9)(a) and it is not apparent whether invoking the privilege is appropriate.

2025App at 115 (“[W]here the external circumstances support the privilege 2 State v. Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d 254 , 906 P.2d 325 (1995). 8 No. 85858-1-I/9 claim, an in camera hearing is not required.”) The “may” language in RCW 9.41.801(9)(b) is only relevant if the privilege is not covered under subsection (9)(a) and it is not apparent whether invoking the privilege is appropriate.

2022Id.

2019Although the scope of discovery is within the trial court’s discretion, we do not “act as a rubber stamp for the trial court’s in camera hearing process.” State v. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d 823, 829 , 700 P.2d 319 (1985).

2019Although the scope of discovery is within the trial court’s discretion, we do not “act as a rubber stamp for the trial court’s in camera hearing process.” State v. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d 823, 829 , 700 P.2d 319 (1985).

2018SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR SCHOOL BUS ROUTE STOP ENHANCEMENT Uiliata claims the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that he committed the drug offenses within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop. 13 No. 34591-2-III State v. Uiliata When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the proper inquiry is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201 , 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). “[A]ll reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn

2018SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR SCHOOL BUS ROUTE STOP ENHANCEMENT Uiliata claims the State failed to produce sufficient evidence that he committed the drug offenses within 1,000 feet of a school bus route stop. 13 No. 34591-2-III State v. Uiliata When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the proper inquiry is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201 , 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). “[A]ll reasonable inferences from the evidence must be drawn

2014Cross, 156 Wn.2d at 610 . -20- 68534-1-1/21 United States. 486 U.S. 153, 159 , 108 S. Ct. 1692 , 100 L.

2014Cross, 156 Wn.2d at 610 . -20- 68534-1-1/21 United States. 486 U.S. 153, 159 , 108 S. Ct. 1692 , 100 L.

2014Cross, 156 Wn.2d at 610 . -20- 68534-1-1/21 United States. 486 U.S. 153, 159 , 108 S. Ct. 1692 , 100 L.

2014On appeal, Walker identifies no material fact "that would have been elicited had the court inquired further." Sinclair, 46 Wn.