Title: State v. Rehkop

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Rehkop  (2004-290); 180 Vt. 228; 908 A.2d 488

2006 VT 72

[Filed 25-Aug-2006]

  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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 2006 VT 72

                                No. 2004-290


  State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                               On Appeal from
       v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                               Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit 

  John Rehkop                                  September Term, 2005


  Karen R. Carroll, J.
  John P. Wesley, J.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Craig Matanle, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, Anna Saxman, Deputy Defender
  General, and Rebecca Turner, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for
  Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶ 1.   SKOGLUND, J.   Defendant John Rehkop was convicted in Windham
  District Court of three counts of sexual assault on a minor and sentenced
  to nine years to twenty-four years of imprisonment.  The offenses allegedly
  occurred on the grounds of the Austine School for the Deaf in Brattleboro,
  Vermont, where defendant was employed as a behavioral specialist and the
  minor, N.K., was a fourteen-year-old student.  The jury trial was
  complicated by the fact that both defendant and N.K. are deaf.  Defendant
  appeals his conviction and argues that: (1) the pretrial-motions court
  erred by refusing to conduct an in camera review of certain privileged
  counseling files pertaining to N.K.'s history of untrustworthiness; and (2)
  statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments amounted to
  plain error requiring reversal of the conviction and retrial.  We agree
  with both of defendant's arguments and reverse the conviction.

       ¶ 2.   As in many cases of this nature, the trial was a credibility
  contest between complainant and defendant.  The evidence at trial included
  neither physical evidence nor corroborating witnesses.  The history of the
  case is as follows.

       ¶ 3.   N.K. attended the Austine School between 1994 and 1999.  While
  enrolled at another school in Massachusetts two years after she left
  Austine, N.K. was traveling with the girls' basketball team and playing
  "truth or dare" with her teammates.  In response to the question of whether
  anyone had had oral sex with a man, N.K. answered yes and said that it was
  a staff member at Austine.  Some time later, one of the teammates relayed
  N.K.'s story to a school counselor named Allison Weiner.  Weiner
  interviewed N.K., and N.K. identified defendant as the man involved. 
  Weiner then contacted police, who charged defendant in July 2001 with four
  counts of sexual assault on a minor.

       ¶ 4.   Meanwhile, N.K.'s parents filed a civil suit in the United
  States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking $5 million
  in damages, alleging that Austine was  negligent in its hiring, retention,
  supervision, and entrustment of defendant and that the school, through
  defendant, also committed assault and battery, deceit, and intentional
  infliction of emotional distress.
   
       ¶ 5.   During pretrial discovery in the criminal trial, defendant came
  across records from the Austine School that documented a number of
  incidents involving lies told by N.K.  The documents included a prior false
  allegation of improper sexual conduct made by N.K. against another student,
  a counseling report describing N.K.'s counseling needs regarding "respect,
  reputation, boundaries, defamation/character and the golden rule," a
  counseling referral form describing N.K. as "less than truthful-could use
  counseling to help her see the value of being truthful," a memo expressing
  staff concern that "sometimes [N.K.] may lie," and an email from school
  counselor Ina Schaeffer expressing concern over N.K.'s "ability to look you
  in the eye and tell a lie."

       ¶ 6.   Seeking to attack the veracity of N.K.'s accusations at trial,
  defendant moved for deposition of Weiner and production of documents
  pertaining to N.K.  This discovery request, which was premised on
  defendant's erroneous belief that N.K. had made the initial report of abuse
  to Weiner, sought to uncover the therapeutic context of the allegations. 
  Defendant attached the Austine records to the motion as substantiated
  examples of N.K.'s history of untrustworthiness, and argued a need "to
  explore these credibility and emotional instability issues with the
  complaining witness's therapist." 

       ¶ 7.   The court, Judge Carroll presiding, agreed that defendant "made
  at least a prima facie showing that the victim has been untruthful in the
  past, even about instances of sexual abuse," and noted that while
  communications between therapists and patients are generally privileged
  under Vermont Rule of Evidence 503, "[t]here is no privilege under this
  rule for information indicating that a patient who is under the age of
  sixteen years has been the victim of a crime," V.R.E. 503(d)(5).  The court
  accordingly allowed defendant to depose Weiner, but limited the scope of
  discovery to: (1) details "surrounding the victim's report to the therapist
  of the alleged abuse by the defendant," including any inconsistent
  statements made by N.K. about the abuse; (2) whether N.K. had recanted any
  portion of her allegation; and (3) whether Weiner was aware of any false
  reports of abuse made by N.K.  The court further limited the scope of
  discovery by forbidding any questions concerning N.K.'s mental health
  diagnosis or history of treatment. 
   
       ¶ 8.   During the subsequent deposition, defendant learned that N.K.'s
  basketball teammate, not N.K., had made the initial report of abuse to
  Weiner.  Defendant then re-deposed N.K. about the "truth or dare" game,
  which N.K. characterized as involving both exaggerated stories and
  believable ones.  N.K. also testified that some of her teammates did not
  believe she was telling the truth.  Noting the new circumstances, defendant
  moved to redepose Weiner on the issue of "whether the complaining witness
  was being treated by her therapist for problems related to telling lies,
  dishonesty, manipulation, improper boundaries, or emotional/psychological
  instability."  Defendant also requested production of Weiner's notes
  regarding N.K., arguing that the documents were necessary to support his
  theory of the case that "the complaining witness lied to her friends about
  him and then was unwilling to admit that she lied when she was confronted
  about it by her therapist."  Defendant sought this discovery to show that
  lying was a continuing problem for N.K. 

       ¶ 9.   Defendant also issued a subpoena duces tecum to Ina Schaeffer,
  a counselor at the Austine School who had treated N.K., and noted that the
  school records showed that Austine staff members had recommended counseling
  for N.K. about lying.  For example, a counseling referral form suggested
  that, when confronted, N.K. "becomes very defensive and less than
  truthful-could use counseling to help her see the value of being truthful." 
  Defendant reasoned that "[t]estimony from Ina Schaeffer may illuminate the
  extent to which the complaining witness struggled with telling the truth,"
  and therefore, the testimony would "have significant impeachment value." 

       ¶ 10.   In June 2002, defendant moved the court to order the
  redeposition of Weiner, the deposition of Schaeffer, and the production of
  their records.  In addition to the points described above, defendant also
  argued that the initiation of the civil suit diminished N.K.'s interest in
  the confidentiality of the records.  Defendant relied on the exception to
  the general patient privilege contained in Rule 503(d)(3), which states,
  "[t]here is no privilege under this rule as to a communication relevant to
  an issue of the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the patient in
  any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his
  claim or defense," and argued that the civil complaint "clearly puts her
  mental state at issue in the federal case, and constitutes a waiver of the
  patient privilege not only in that proceeding but [in the criminal case] as
  well." 
   
       ¶ 11.   In granting the motion in part and denying it in part, Judge
  Carroll first found that the documents requested by defendant were
  privileged under Rule 503, and characterized our holdings in State v.
  Percy, 149 Vt. 623,