ILNews

Court reaffirms 3-step test for in camera review

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals doesn’t believe that its previous ruling regarding the in camera review of an organization’s documents relating to alleged molestation victims sends the message that it’s “open season” on the records of victim services providers.

On rehearing in Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., State of Indiana v. Ronald Keith Fromme, No.19A05-0910-CR-602, Crisis Connection Inc., a nonprofit that provides services for domestic violence and sexual assault victims, challenged the appellate court’s July 15 decision affirming an order for an in camera review of documents from the nonprofit relating to alleged molestation victims of Ronald Keith Fromme. The issue was a matter of first impression that came before the court on interlocutory appeal.

The organization claimed the opinion didn’t require defendants to make any threshold showing before obtaining an in camera review of confidential records and wanted the court to adopt the standard in People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994). But the judges did determine what standard criminal defendants should meet and used the three-step test that determines what information is discoverable in criminal cases: particularity, relevance, and if those are met, then the trial court must grant the request unless there is a showing of “paramount interest” in non-disclosure, wrote Judge Terry Crone.  

Crisis Connection also argued the appellate court improperly found it conceded that Fromme met the particularity and materiality criteria when it said “Crisis Connection has not disputed those findings.” Judge Crone wrote that the court didn’t find Crisis Connection affirmatively ceded this point, just that it didn’t present an argument as to the validity of the trial court’s findings.

“Therefore, our opinion provides little detail as to what sort of showing would suffice to meet the particularity and materiality criteria. Crisis Connection expresses concern that this lack of detail will send the message to attorneys and trial courts ‘that open season has been declared on the records of victim services providers,’” he wrote.

The Court of Appeals disagreed because the judges didn’t think the opinion sends the message that meeting the first two requirements will be an easy task in every case.

“[T]his case simply has not presented us with an occasion to expand upon those parts of the three-step test. Because discovery disputes are almost always fact-sensitive, we decline to elaborate beyond the enunciation of the appropriate standard to be applied,” he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT