ILNews

Justices rule on cases using 3-step test seeking records

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court tackled the issue of requests for production of information to private third parties in two opinions Thursday – one dealing with records sought that fall under the victim-advocate privilege and the other dealing with unprotected information.

Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Ronald K. Fromme, No. 19S05-1012-CR-678, and Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana, No., 49S05-1106-CR-370, both involved the three-step test used to determine the discoverability of information in criminal cases – particularity, relevance or materiality, and paramount interest.

In Crisis Connection, Ronald Fromme sought the counseling records from nonprofit Crisis Connection of two girls and their mother for use in his defense against child molesting charges. Crisis Connection argued those records are protected under the state’s victim-advocate privilege. The trial court ordered the records delivered to the court for an in camera review. On interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed using the three-step test, holding that the privacy interest was important, but not strong enough to bar an in camera review of the records.

In Crawford, Lamar Crawford sought information recorded by Lucky Shift during the production of “The Shift,” a television show that followed Indianapolis Metropolitan Police homicide detectives. Crawford was accused of a murder that was the subject of a show that aired. The trial court ordered some information be disclosed for an in camera review, but denied three of Crawford’s requests because they weren’t particular enough. Using the three-step test, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that those three requests weren’t sufficiently particular.

The justices found the COA erred in using the three-step test in Crisis Connection because the records Fromme sought are privileged information, and caselaw makes clear that the test only applies to discover nonprivileged information. The Indiana Legislature has expressly provided that the victim-advocate privilege applies in cases like this one to prohibit any disclosure, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

The high court went on to find that Fromme does not have a constitutional right to an in camera review of Crisis Connection’s records, frequently citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987). Indiana courts do not extend Confrontation Clause rights to pretrial settings, so as long as the trial court does not improperly prevent Fromme from cross-examining the alleged victims at trial, his rights under the Confrontation Clause won’t be violated, wrote the justice.

The justices emphasized the importance of the promise of confidentiality between a provider and a patient. If patients knew their records could be subject to even an in camera review, confidential conversations would surely be chilled, wrote Justice Sullivan.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.

In Crawford, the three-step test does apply because the information Crawford seeks isn’t privileged. The justices focused on two requests denied by the trial court: Request #18 – Footage of any and all statements of officers, agents, or affiliates of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department or any reenactment thereof; and Request #19 – Footage of anyone interviewed or questioned, or any reenactment thereof, in connection with the investigation of the death of Gernell Jackson.

In each of the challenged requests, Crawford doesn’t state with reasonable particularity what footage or statements or interviews he seeks, he is just fishing for it, wrote Justice Sullivan. The justices couldn’t say that the trial court abused its discretion in quashing these discovery requests.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT