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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT