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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT