## Facts

- Jean Bernard Germain, an inmate, shared a jail cell with John Campbell.
- An altercation occurred in the cell in which Campbell was seriously injured; the State charged Germain with assault-related offenses and attempted murder.
- Germain’s defense theory was self-defense tied to his belief that Campbell was a convicted sex offender and that Campbell was attempting a sexual assault.
- At trial, Campbell testified as the victim and a primary State witness.
- On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Campbell about a prior guilty plea involving sodomy of a young boy.
- Campbell stated that he did not recall key details of the prior guilty plea and related facts.
- To refresh Campbell’s recollection, Germain sought permission to show Campbell the presentence-investigation report (PSI) prepared in connection with Campbell’s earlier conviction.
- The PSI contained personal information about Campbell and was treated as confidential under Maryland law to limit disclosure.
- The trial court refused to allow the defense to use the PSI to refresh Campbell’s memory, reasoning that PSI reports are confidential and could not be shown to a witness “for any purpose.”
- Germain was convicted (including attempted second-degree murder and first-degree assault) and appealed, arguing that the categorical prohibition on using the PSI improperly limited cross-examination and the ability to test the witness’s account.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court errs by categorically barring a defendant from using a key State witness’s presentence-investigation report to refresh that witness’s recollection on the ground that PSI reports are confidential.

## Decision

- Yes. The trial court erred by treating PSI confidentiality as an absolute bar to using the report to refresh the witness’s recollection.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the statutory confidentiality protections for PSIs do not forbid all in-court uses and do not justify a blanket refusal to permit use for refreshing recollection.
- The Court reversed the judgment affirming Germain’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A presentence-investigation report is generally confidential, but confidentiality is not absolute; the statutory scheme chiefly limits public dissemination and unauthorized disclosure.
- A court may permit a writing to be shown to a witness to refresh recollection, even if the writing is not itself admissible, so long as the process is supervised and consistent with the rules of evidence.
- A trial judge may not refuse a request based solely on an incorrect legal premise that PSIs can never be used “for any purpose”; the court must instead consider the request under ordinary evidentiary control, including appropriate protections for sensitive information.
- When the witness is the subject of the PSI, allowing the witness to view the report in court to jog memory is materially different from releasing the report to the public or to unrelated third parties.
- Where cross-examination about a witness’s prior conviction bears on the defense theory and the witness’s credibility, an improper categorical restriction can warrant reversal and a new trial.

## Conclusion

Germain v. State held that a trial court may not impose a blanket prohibition on using a key witness’s presentence-investigation report to refresh recollection merely because the report is confidential; because the trial court relied on an absolute confidentiality rule that Maryland law does not impose, the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial.


Germain v. State, 769 A.2d 931 (2001)