No “Material and Favorable” Showing Required for Non‑Confidential Criminal Discovery under Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 2(3)

Introduction

In State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Manska, 19 N.W.3d 196 (Minn. 2025), the Minnesota Supreme Court resolved an important and recurring question at the intersection of criminal discovery and digital evidence: what threshold showing must a defendant make to compel disclosure of non-confidential materials under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.01, subdivision 2(3)? The Court held that a defendant need only demonstrate that the requested information “may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant,” explicitly rejecting a higher “material and favorable” standard that some lower courts had imported from cases addressing confidential or privileged records.

The case arose from a DWI stop by a Nashwauk police officer whose Axon-equipped squad car captured dash-camera video. Manska, disputing the authenticity of the footage, moved to compel disclosure of the device’s audit trail to test for tampering. The district court denied the motion; the court of appeals affirmed, demanding a showing that the audit-trail evidence would be “material and favorable” to the defense. The Supreme Court reversed, clarified the governing standard, and provided concrete guidance on the remedy.

Summary of the Opinion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held:

For non-confidential discovery sought under Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3), a defendant must show only that the information “may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.”
The “material and favorable” test applies to discovery of confidential or privileged records and is inapplicable to non-confidential materials such as an Axon dash-camera audit trail.
The court of appeals erred in applying the higher standard, and the district court applied the wrong metric by focusing on the credibility of tampering claims instead of the Rule’s “may relate” threshold.
On the facts presented—including the missing 30-second “silent rollback” segment and the vendor’s description of hash validation and audit-logging—the defendant met the “may relate” threshold, and on these specific facts it would be an abuse of discretion not to require production of the audit trail.
Remedy: The case is remanded. If the audit trail shows tampering, the defendant is entitled to a new suppression hearing; if it shows no tampering, the conviction stands. The Court declined to deem the error harmless before the audit trail is disclosed.

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 2, 2020, a Nashwauk officer observed a vehicle twice cross the fog line and initiated a stop using the squad car’s emergency lights, automatically activating the Axon dash camera. The officer identified the driver as Christopher Lee Manska, noted indicia of intoxication, learned his license had been canceled as inimical to public safety, and later found 14.11 grams of marijuana in the car. The State charged Manska with DWI, refusal to submit to a chemical test, driving after cancellation, possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.

In pretrial motions, Manska sought the dash-camera audit trail, asserting the provided DVDs were inauthentic or altered. The district court denied the motion under Rule 9.01, discrediting the tampering claim and emphasizing that discovery already included the video files. The court relied, in part, on an Axon engineer’s email stating that original footage cannot be modified on the server and that a SHA-2 hash is logged to detect alterations. After a later suppression hearing, the district court denied suppression, and a jury convicted on all counts.

The court of appeals affirmed the discovery denial, reasoning that the defendant had failed to make a “material and favorable” showing and had not provided an adequate factual basis to suspect alteration. The Supreme Court granted review limited to the Rule 9.01 discovery issue.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009):
Underdahl addressed two consolidated DWI cases where defendants sought the source code for the Intoxilyzer breath-testing device. The Court held one defendant’s showing inadequate and the other’s sufficient under Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3). Importantly, Underdahl applied the Rule’s text—requiring a showing that the information “may relate” to guilt or innocence—and explicitly characterized that standard as a “lenient showing requirement.” Although Underdahl referenced a “material and favorable” test in discussing cases involving confidential records, it did not adopt that standard for non-confidential discovery. Manska relies on this demarcation; the Supreme Court agrees and clarifies any lingering confusion.
State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 1992) and State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 2008):
These cases articulate the “material and favorable” standard in the context of confidential records (e.g., a victim’s psychiatric file), tracking the United States Supreme Court’s framework in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987). The Court in Manska underscores that Hummel’s standard is confined to confidential information requests and should not be imported into Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3) motions for non-confidential data.
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987):
Ritchie provides the federal due process backdrop for discovery of confidential records, requiring a showing that requested information would be “material” to the defense. Manska clarifies that this doctrine does not control non-confidential discovery under Minnesota’s Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3).
State v. Nerz, 587 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 1998):
Establishes that interpretation of procedural rules is reviewed de novo. The Court uses de novo review to clarify Rule 9.01’s text and scope here.
State v. Bobo, 770 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2009) and State v. Bell, 993 N.W.2d 418 (Minn. 2023):
These cases inform the remedial framework. Bobo counsels tailoring remedies to the violation and remand where a retrial is not necessarily required. Bell exemplifies providing detailed instructions on remand. Manska follows these principles by dictating a conditional remand keyed to the audit trail’s contents.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeds in three steps.

Rule Text Controls for Non-Confidential Materials.
Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3), permits courts to order disclosure of “any relevant material and information” on the defendant’s motion if the defendant shows the information “may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant or negate guilt or reduce culpability.” The Rule does not include a “material and favorable” requirement. Those words appear only in case law addressing confidential materials. The Court thus confirms that the correct standard for non-confidential discovery is the Rule’s own “may relate” threshold.
Underdahl Did Not Adopt a Higher Standard for Non-Confidential Discovery.
Although Underdahl cited Hummel, its operative analysis applied the “lenient” Rule 9.01 text and contrasted a wholly unsupported request (Underdahl) with a supported one (Brunner). Manska removes doubt: Underdahl’s reference to Hummel was descriptive of the confidential-records context and did not import that test into non-confidential discovery.
Application and Abuse of Discretion on These Facts.
Both lower courts erred by demanding more than Rule 9.01 requires. The court of appeals explicitly used the “material and favorable” standard; the district court effectively did so by insisting on proof of actual alteration and discounting the defendant’s theory as non-credible. Under the correct “may relate” threshold, the defense made an adequate showing:
- Axon’s system maintains an audit trail and a SHA‑2 hash for original uploads; comparing the copy’s hash to the audit record can confirm identity.
- The audit trail could reveal discrepancies (e.g., unexpected recording start/end, deletions, metadata anomalies) bearing on authenticity and officer credibility—matters directly related to guilt or innocence.
- There was evidence of a potentially missing 30‑second “silent rollback” segment, which Axon systems ordinarily capture upon activation via emergency lights. This supported the request even if the precise argument surfaced more clearly after the suppression hearing; the absence of transcripts from two omnibus hearings (due to court reporter error) meant the defendant had not forfeited the point.
Given this record, the Court holds that the “may relate” standard was met and that, on the specific facts—especially the missing silent rollback—it would be an abuse of discretion not to order production of the audit trail.

Impact

The decision has significant consequences for criminal discovery practice in Minnesota:

Clarified Threshold for Non-Confidential Discovery. Defendants no longer face the higher “material and favorable” burden when seeking non-confidential information. This lowers the hurdle for obtaining digital metadata, audit logs, instrument records, and similar materials that may bear on authenticity, reliability, or credibility.
Digital Evidence and Audit Trails. Requests for dash‑cam/body‑cam audit logs, cryptographic hashes, chain‑of‑custody metadata, and system event records are likely to increase. Prosecutors and agencies should anticipate routine disclosure of audit trails when the defense articulates how they may relate to guilt or innocence.
Underdahl Recalibrated, Not Overruled. Manska harmonizes Underdahl with Hummel/Ritchie by reaffirming two tracks: a lenient “may relate” test for non-confidential materials; a “material and favorable” test for confidential or privileged records.
Trial-Court Discretion Still Matters—But Is Not Boundless. Although Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3), confers discretion, that discretion is reviewable for abuse where the record establishes a plausible relation to guilt or innocence. Practices that demand proof of actual alteration or reliability flaws at the discovery stage are inconsistent with the Rule.
Remedial Guidance and Harmless-Error Analysis. The Court provides a practical template for remand: produce the audit trail, then tailor relief depending on whether tampering appears. Courts should be cautious with premature harmless-error findings when the undisclosed material could affect suppression or trial credibility assessments.
Preservation Duty Reminder. The opinion notes Rule 9.01’s requirement that, upon denial of a motion, the court must inspect and preserve relevant material if the defendant requests it. Defenders should timely invoke this safeguard to prevent spoliation or loss during appellate review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“May relate” standard (Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3)): A low threshold. The defense must explain how the requested information could plausibly bear on guilt, innocence, or culpability—not prove it will help.
“Material and favorable” standard: A higher test used when seeking confidential or privileged records (e.g., counseling or psychiatric files). It asks whether the information would likely aid the defense in a meaningful way. It does not govern non-confidential discovery requests under Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3).
Non-confidential vs. confidential information: Non-confidential materials include ordinary law-enforcement data like audit logs, system metadata, and non-privileged files. Confidential materials implicate privacy or privilege (e.g., medical, mental-health, or protected child-welfare files).
Audit trail (digital evidence): A system-generated log recording device events (e.g., power on/off, recording start/end, docking, firmware updates). For Axon systems, audit trails are available in PDF/CSV formats and can include timestamps, battery status, firmware version, and unique evidence identifiers.
SHA‑2 hash: A cryptographic fingerprint of a digital file. Matching hashes indicate identical content; mismatches may suggest alteration or corruption. Axon systems compute and store a hash for original uploads to verify authenticity.
Silent rollback (dash‑cam video): When emergency lights activate recording, Axon dash cams typically retain the preceding 30 seconds of video without audio. A missing silent rollback segment can be a red flag prompting inquiry into system behavior, configuration, or potential deletion.
Standards of review: Interpretation of procedural rules is reviewed de novo (fresh look). Discovery orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion (deferential, but reversible if based on legal error or unsupported findings).
Forfeiture: The loss of a claim by failing to raise it at the appropriate time. Here, the Court declined to find forfeiture of the “missing rollback” argument because transcripts of two omnibus hearings were unavailable due to a court-reporter error and the defense consistently alleged tampering.

Practical Guidance

For defense counsel: Anchor Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3) requests in concrete, case-linked reasons why the item may relate to guilt or innocence. Technical vendor documentation, expert affidavits, or system manuals can help. If denied, request the court to inspect and preserve under the Rule.
For prosecutors and agencies: Anticipate that audit trails and metadata for dash cams, body cams, lab instruments, and other devices are discoverable upon a minimal showing. Maintain internal protocols for prompt export and preservation of audit logs and hash values.
For trial judges: Apply the “may relate” threshold for non-confidential materials. Avoid credibility determinations on the merits of a tampering theory at the discovery stage. Consider in-camera review where appropriate and issue tailored orders with timelines and formats (e.g., CSV/PDF).

What This Decision Does Not Do

It does not require disclosure of all requested materials; courts retain discretion, bounded by the correct legal standard.
It does not extend the holding to confidential or privileged records; Hummel/Ritchie still govern those requests.
It does not resolve whether tampering occurred or whether the suppression motion should be granted; that depends on the audit trail on remand.

Conclusion

State v. Manska is a significant clarification of Minnesota criminal discovery practice in the digital age. By restoring the plain-text “may relate to guilt or innocence” standard for non-confidential materials under Rule 9.01, subd. 2(3), the Court ensures defendants can obtain critical metadata and audit logs that bear on authenticity, reliability, and credibility without first proving their usefulness. At the same time, the decision preserves judicial discretion and provides a pragmatic remedial pathway keyed to what the audit trail reveals. Going forward, litigants and courts alike should treat audit trails and similar non-confidential digital records as discoverable upon a modest, case-linked showing—reserving the more demanding “material and favorable” test for genuinely confidential information.