Division III panel hears arguments in Hodreya PRP over alleged withheld recording

A Division III panel heard oral argument in the personal restraint petition of Mr. Hodreya on issues tied to an allegedly withheld recorded interview and related confrontation- and counsel-performance claims.

Defense attorney Sean Devlin told the court his "strongest argument... begins with the Brady claim," saying a recorded interview with Mrs. Simmons — who did not testify at trial because she was in a nursing home after an aneurysm — was not produced and that the state admitted her statements through other witnesses rather than live testimony. Devlin argued the recording would have been "the best evidence" to test Detective Schumacher's paraphrase of what Mrs. Simmons said and to impeach other testimony, and that the absence of the recording and the inability to confront the witness prejudiced Mr. Hodreya.

The panel pressed counsel on the testimonial nature of the out-of-court statements and on whether the police report alone could have been used for impeachment. Devlin said the recording was not merely impeachment material but could have corroborated a provocation defense arising from a long-running property dispute, undermining the state's description of the conduct as harassing and frightening to the victims.

The state's counsel responded that the record and submitted exhibits show an investigation was conducted, pointing to emails and investigator notes. The prosecutor told the court Hodreya has the burden in a PRP to show when the recording existed, who had it and whether it was provided to defense counsel, and described portions of Hodreya's filings as speculative. "There is a burden on these PRPs. Mister Hodreya has not met that burden," the prosecutor said, asking the court to deny the petition.

The panel also heard argument on cumulative error and a separate statutory/merger question about whether elevating a misdemeanor violation of a no-contact order to a felony was permitted; a panel judge cited State v. Novikoff in questioning counsel on that point.

No ruling was issued during the hearing. Judge Lawrence Berry said the arguments were "complicated" and submitted the matter for decision. Both sides were thanked for their presentations; defense had reserved five minutes for rebuttal and used additional time at the court's invitation.

The court did not announce a timeline for issuing an opinion. The petition was submitted for the panel's consideration.