State v. Andres C. (Concurrence)

Summary

The concurrence joins the majority but emphasizes that the complainant's journals were most likely discoverable under the criminal discovery rule requiring disclosure of materials material to preparing the defense. The journals concerned the alleged abuse, were created closer in time to the events than the complainant's testimony, and were described as the best record of what happened. Because the defendant did not invoke that discovery provision in the lower courts or before this court, the concurrence concludes that it could not support reversal. The concurrence's reasoning is noncontrolling because it is a separate opinion.