State v. Santos

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, concluding that any constitutional error arising from the limited disclosure of the eyewitness’s psychiatric records and the restriction on expert consultation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not decide whether the trial court actually violated the defendant’s confrontation, due process, or right-to-present-a-defense rights because the record contained substantial corroborating evidence and extensive impeachment of the eyewitness. The defendant’s state constitutional claims were deemed abandoned for lack of independent analysis.