Case Title: In Re F.E.F.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                           Nos. 89-228 & 89-296


In Re F.E.F., Juvenile                       Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     and                                     District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

State of Vermont                             November Term, 1989

     v.

Edwin G. Cameron


Robert Grussing III, J. (89-228)
Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J. (89-296)


Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Alexandra N. Thayer,
  Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellant Department
  of Social and Rehabilitation Services

William Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, Bennington, for
  plaintiff-appellant State

Witten, Saltonstall & Woolmington, Bennington, for defendant-appellee F.E.F.

William M. McCarty and Bruce Hesselbach of McCarty Law Offices, Brattleboro,
  for defendant-appellee Cameron


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ., and Springer, D.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     DOOLEY, J.   This is a consolidated appeal from district court orders
in a criminal case and an unrelated juvenile delinquency case.  Both orders
require the Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS)
to disclose records relating to child abuse investigations conducted in
connection with the cases.  In both cases, SRS has appealed the disclosure
order.  In the juvenile delinquency proceeding, SRS's failure to disclose
the records led to dismissal of the case, and the State has appealed the
dismissal through the state's attorney.  We affirm the disclosure order in
both cases, but reverse the dismissal of the juvenile proceedings.
     In State v. Cameron, defendant is charged with sexual assault on a
minor, his daughter, in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(3).  The probable
cause affidavit of a Bennington police officer indicates that defendant's
wife and daughter originally made the complaint to an SRS worker who called
the police officer.  The alleged victim's statement was taken at the SRS
office.  The State disclosed the SRS worker as a trial witness, but did not
turn over any of her records in discovery.  Defendant sought her records
from the state's attorney and eventually filed a motion for disclosure of
all SRS records concerning the alleged sexual abuse.
     Defendant made a number of claims in support of his asserted need for
the records.  He noted that the officer's statement indicated that he had
interviewed the victim jointly with the SRS worker.  He also stated that in
cases of alleged child abuse by a parent, the protocol in effect in southern
Vermont required an interview with the other parent, here the mother, and
that he needed to see that interview because the mother had requested
charges be dropped, apparently in return for a divorce property settlement.
Defendant also claimed that the protocol required a medical examination of
the alleged victim, but the State, in response to discovery requests, stated
without explanation that no medical examination had been conducted.
Finally, defendant alleged that there were inconsistencies in the victim's
statements that were made available to him and that there was at least one
more interview done by an SRS worker that was not made available to him.
     Based on defendant's motion and a hearing, the court required SRS to
turn over the records to the court pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 16(2)(f) so that
the court could make an in camera inspection.  SRS was given permission to
appeal this order pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5.1 but was not granted a stay.  The
records were turned over to the court, and many were disclosed to defendant
pending this appeal.
     The history of the juvenile delinquency proceeding is similar.
Defendant is charged with a sexual assault on a nine-year-old boy in
violation of 13 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(3).  A state police officer's affidavit
accompanying the petition indicates that a joint interview of the alleged
victim was conducted with an SRS worker who acted as the "lead interviewer."
At a preliminary hearing in March 1989, the court ordered the State to
provide discovery of all "Rule 16 matters including SRS investigative files
. . . as to this matter."  When the deputy state's attorney attempted to
obtain the records from SRS, the department refused to provide them and
communicated that refusal to the court along with an affidavit of the
district director explaining its file-access policy and its relationship to
the state's attorney's office.  This led to a motion to compel and the
issuance by defendant's counsel of a subpoena duces tecum to require the
district director to bring the records to a hearing.  At the hearing, the
SRS director indicated that he had provided the state's attorney's office
with two anatomically-correct drawings on which the alleged victim, during
his interview with the officer and the SRS worker, marked the area where he
had been sexually abused.
     Following the hearing, the court reiterated its decision that the SRS
file was discoverable under V.R.Cr.P. 16, but ordered that it be turned over
to the court for an in camera inspection.  SRS then filed a notice of
appeal, and defendant responded with a motion to strike the notice because
the discovery order was not a final judgment.  The court struck the notice
of appeal on April 25, 1989.  When the State failed to comply with the dis-
covery order on April 27th, the date of the merits hearing, the court
dismissed the case concluding that the State had "flagrantly" violated the
court's order to produce the SRS file.  Both SRS and the State appealed from
this order.
     There are two main issues on the merits of these consolidated appeals:
(1) whether the SRS files are discoverable under the applicable provisions
of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure; (FN1) and (2) whether all or part of
the SRS files are discoverable as a matter of due process of law under the
standards announced in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie,