Prosecutor said she was surprised the defendant had not transmitted trial exhibits or suppression transcripts to the appeals court; she offered to locate or transmit records necessary for the court to consider authentication and corroboration questions.

At oral argument in Raub v. Raub, appellant counsel argued the trial court never made a clear adequate-cause ruling on a belated major-modification claim and that the post-trial CR 15B amendment deprived the father of notice and opportunity to develop evidence; respondent urged deference and faulted the lack of a continuance request.

Both sides addressed Department of Children's Services (DCS) productions: defense counsel said redactions and jumbled productions prevented meaningful appellate review and urged remand; the state acknowledged redactions but proposed a limited remand for in-camera review (Pennsylvania v. Ritchie approach).

Defense told the appellate panel the trial court failed to enter required findings and that under precedent the state must supply a missing record; counsel argued this procedural gap justifies reversal before reaching the merits.

Defense counsel told the justices that the trial jury deadlocked and required a Tuohy/Rodriguez instruction to break the tie; counsel said that fact bears on whether the expert testimony and other evidence were decisive, while the Commonwealth said the jury still could have reached the verdict on circumstantial evidence.