Case Title: State v. Curtis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-04-01T00:00:00Z

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.


                                No. 87-278


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Addison Superior Court

Dennis R. Curtis                             April Term, 1989


Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

William T. Keefe, Addison County Deputy State's Attorney, Middlebury, for
  plaintiff-appellee

Charles S. Martin and Deborah Palmucci, Law Clerk (On the Brief), of Martin
  & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for amicus curiae Office of Attorney General


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ., and Barney, C.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from a trial court order quashing a
subpoena duces tecum that would have compelled a Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services (SRS) worker to produce information from SRS files
about a juvenile sexual assault victim.  We reverse and remand.
     Defendant was charged with the attempted sexual assault of a 12-year-
old girl under 13 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(1).  Following the alleged attack, the
girl ran to a neighbor's home, and the police were called.  The police
could not locate the girl's parents, and she was placed in the temporary
custody of SRS, which then consented to the child's physical examination in
connection with the ensuing criminal investigation.  A deposition was
scheduled for the child, and a subpoena duces tecum was served on the SRS
social worker assigned to the case requiring her "to bring with her all SRS
files containing the name of [the child], and any documents in the
possession of SRS pertaining to [the child], including drawings, tape
recordings, pictures, audio/video tapes, etc."  The State moved to quash the
subpoena, arguing that these materials were not subject to release, (FN1) and
the trial court, after viewing them in camera and identifying the more
relevant of two files as "primarily the investigation of the alleged sexual
assault which is the subject of this proceeding," concluded that the
materials were protected from discovery "as confidential information under
the patient privilege."  The court sealed its own decision on the motion,
apparently in response to V.R.Cr.P. 16.2(f).  Defendant moved in the trial
court under V.R.A.P. 5 for interlocutory review of the quash order, and that
permission was granted. (FN2) The trial court certified the following question
for review by this Court:
           Does the court's decision denying access of the
         defendant to the records of the [Department of] Social
         and Rehabilitation Services and to the findings and
         conclusions of the court deny the defendant a fair trial
         and violate his confrontation rights contained in the
         Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
         Constitution and Chapter I, Article Ten of the
         Constitution of the State of Vermont[?]

We subsequently granted defendant's motion to allow appellate counsel to
view the trial court's findings and conclusions. (FN3) also requested the
Attorney General to file a brief amicus curiae.
     We note at the outset that the question certified by the trial court
does not fully describe the issues now before us.  See State v. Dreibelbis,
147 Vt. 98, 99-100,