ILNews

3-step test needed to balance rights

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s victim-advocate privilege is limited by a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today on the matter of first impression.

Crisis Connection Inc., a nonprofit that works with domestic violence and sexual assault victims, doesn’t believe it should have to turn over records to the court for an in camera review in Ronald Keith Fromme’s criminal case. Fromme was charged with two counts of Class A felony child molesting and he sought all records from the nonprofit relating to his two alleged victims and their mother.

The trial court found the records sought by Fromme were sufficiently identified, may be essential in determining the credibility of the witnesses, and may be material to his defense. The Court of Appeals took up the issue on interlocutory appeal and affirmed the order.

In In Re Subpoena to Crisis Connection Inc., State of Indiana v. Ronald Keith Fromme, No. 19A05-0910-CR-602, the Court of Appeals explored the scope of Indiana’s victim-advocate privilege and declined to hold the privilege is absolute. The privilege is conferred on communications made to counselors and any employee or volunteer, as well as participants in support groups. The statute does exclude information regarding alleged child abuse or neglect that must be reported by law from the definition of “confidential information,” but that doesn’t apply in the instant case. The information Fromme seeks is privileged.

They then turned to rulings from other jurisdictions on whether an absolute privilege must yield to Sixth Amendment rights to decide whether the records could be produced in camera, an issue left undecided in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987).

The judges found People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994) and other cases allowing for in camera review upon sufficient showing of need to be better reasoned than other cases that upheld the statutory privilege against a Sixth Amendment challenge. Stanaway and similar cases more closely resemble the approach Indiana has applied to other privileges, noted Judge Crone.

As is the case with precedent addressing other privileges in Indiana, a three-step test should be done to determine whether information is discoverable in a criminal case: there must be a sufficient designation of the items sought to be discovered; the items requested must be material to the defense; and if those requirements are met, the trial court must grant the request unless there is a showing of “paramount interest” in non-disclosure.

This test has been applied in several cases where the discovery sought was privileged or confidential, and it provides a useful framework for balancing the victim’s interest in privacy with a defendant’s constitutional rights, even before obtaining an in camera review, wrote the judge.

“While the State undoubtedly has an important interest in protecting the victim-advocate relationship, a defendant‘s rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment are also of great importance,” wrote Judge Crone. “The need to discover exculpatory evidence and effectively cross-examine witnesses is especially apparent in sex offense cases, which often hinge on witness credibility and which carry heavy potential penalties.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT