On appeal, Glick argued that he should have been allowed access to a Presentence Investigation (PSI) report concerning a prosecution witness. The District Court Judge excluded the report on the basis of an in camera review because she found no references to specific instances of truthfulness or untruthfulness that would be relevant pursuant to Montana Rule of Evidence 608(b). Glick’s assertion was that this violated his constitutional right to due process, to present a complete defense, and to confront witnesses.
SCOMONT held, under Montana law, PSI reports must be part of the court record but may not be opened for public inspection. The correct process is to have confidential state agency records reviewed in camera by the trial court to determine whether they contain information that is material to the defense. The District Court did so in this case, and its denial of Glick’s motion for access to the PSI report was not error.
The Court also denied Glick’s claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on an attorney conflict of ineterest.
