Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01424/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry W. Exline
Appellee
Frank O. Gunter
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

LARRY W. EXLINE, 

Petitioner-Appel lee, 

FIL ~ .. J 

United States Cot: 1:t of Appealr- 'fenth Circuit 

FEBO 3 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-1424 

FRANK o. GUNTER, Executive 

Director, Colorado Department 

of Corrections, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D. C. No. 91-F-1136) 

John Daniel Dailey, Deputy Attorney General, Appellate Section, 

Denver, Colorado, (Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Raymond T. 

Slaughter, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, 

Solicitor General, Denver, Colorado , with him on the brief) , 

Attorneys for Respondent-Appellant. 

Andrew C. Heher, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, 

(David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, with him on the 

brief), Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellee. 

Before KELLY, and MCWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, Senior 

District Judge.* 

BROWN, Senior District Judge. 

* The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 1 
In October, 1986, in the district court of El Paso County, 

Colorado, Larry Exline was convicted of one count of sexual assault 

on a child. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, 

People v. Exline, 775 P. 2d 48 (Colo. App. 1988), and certiorari 

was denied by the Supreme Court of Colorado. 

One of the issues presented in the state appeal was whether 

the state trial court erred in denying Exline's motion for 

discovery of the victim's social services child abuse records. The 

state appellate court found that Exline had failed to make a 

sufficient offer of proof for the necessity of those records, and 

also ruled that the denial of the discovery request did not violate 

Exline's constitutional right of confrontation. 

Exline then filed this federal habeas corpus action seeking 

relief upon the grounds that his right to due process was violated 

by the trial court's failure to review in camera the social service 

records of the alleged victim, and that his rights under the due 

process and confrontation clauses were violated because the 

prosecution had access to those records, and he did not. 1 

Upon finding that Exline' s right to due process had been 

violated by the state court's failure to review the social service 

records in camera, the federal district court below entered an 

order holding the petition for habeas corpus in abeyance and 

directing the El Paso County District Court "to conduct an in 

Exline's first federal petition for writ of habeas corpus 

was denied for failure to exhaust state remedies because Exline 

included some unexhausted claims within his complaint. He then 

refiled his petition, relyi ng solely upon claims raised in his 

state appeal. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 2 
camera review of the department of social service's records of the 

complainant to determine whether the records contain information 

that may have been necessary to Exline' s defense." The state court 

was also directed to submit a certificate of compliance and 

remedial measures to be taken, if any, in light of the federal 

court's order. 

The state court returned its certificate of compliance under 

date of October 10, 1991. Its portent was that while denying 

Exline's motion to discover the social service reports, it had 

provided that he could have access "to a juvenile file No. 

85JV1677," a dependency and neglect file, in order that he could 

submit a "particularized statement of need" for the social services 

file . It appears that this juvenile file was created as a result 

of an action brought by the department of social services 

concerning MJ, her sister, their mother, and several other parties, 

including Exline. 

The state court also found that when it examined the social 

services file, as directed by the federal court, it "identified 

four documents which it believes may have been necessary to Mr. 

Exline's defense." The state court declined to take any remedial 

action because in its view Exline had failed to examine the 

juvenile file which was made available to him and had failed to 

make any showing of "particularized need" for the social services 

file. 

After receiving the certificate from the state court, the 

federal district court below, proceeding under applicable law 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 3 
provided by Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40 

(1987), again returned the matter to the state court, with these 

directions: 

(1) The El Paso County District Court is DIRECTED to 

conduct an in camera review of the Department of Social 

Service's records of the complainant to determine whether 

the records contain information that probably would have 

changed the outcome of Exline's trial. If the records, 

including the four documents referred to in the 

Certificate of Compliance, contain information that 

probably would have changed the outcome of Exline' s 

trial, Exline must be given a new trial. If the El Paso 

County District Court finds that the DSS records contain 

no such information, or if the nondisclosure was harmless 

beyond a reasonable doubt, no further action shall be 

taken by the district court. Complete findings of fact 

and conclusions of law shall be entered by the district 

court. 2 

Under the ruling of the supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. 

Ritchie, supra, the district court correctly found that Exline had 

been denied his right to due process because the state trial court 

had failed to review the social service records in camera. 

In Ritchie, the defendant was charged with assaulting his 

daughter and prior to trial he sought access to records compiled by 

a social services agency at the time of another investigation. The 

agency claimed the records were privileged under state law, 

al though there was an exception to that law whereby the agency 

could disclose records to a "court of competent jurisdiction 

pursuant to a court order." Ritchie argued that he was entitled to 

examine the records "because the files might contain names of 

favorable witnesses, as well as other exculpatory evidence . " The 

2 The federal district court granted the State's motion for 

stay of judgment pending appeal. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 4 
motion to disclose was denied, even though the trial judge had not 

examined the file himself. There was no indication that the 

prosecutor had been given access to the agency records or that he 

was aware of the contents of those records. The Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court determined that the order denying access had violated 

both the confrontation clause and the compulsory process class, and 

that defendant's counsel was entitled to view the files. 

On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the "the ability to 

question adverse witnesses . • does not include the power to 

require the pretrial disclosure of any and all information that 

might be useful in contradicting unfavorable testimony", and that 

"(a) defendant's right to discover exculpatory evidence does not 

include the unsupervised authority to search through the 

Commonwealth's files." 94 L. Ed. 2d at 54, and at 58. However, the 

Court further found that the defendant was entitled to have a file 

reviewed "by the trial court to determine whether it contains 

information that probably would have changed the outcome of his 

trial. If it does, he must be given a new trial. If the records 

maintained contain no such information, or if the 

nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the lower 

court will be free to reinstate the prior conviction." 97 L. Ed. 

2d at 58. (Emphasis supplied). 

In the case before us, Exline was charged with two counts of 

sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. Colo. 

Rev. Stat. §18-3-405(2) (b) (1986). The counts involved two young 

daughters of the woman with whom he was living. One of the counts 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 5 
involving the younger daughter was dismissed because she was 

incompetent to testify because of her age. Her sister, MJ, was ten 

years old at the time of trial; and the trial court ruled that she 

was presumed to be competent as a witness. 

It appears that prior to the alleged assaults by Exline, MJ 

had been sexually molested by two other men--several assaults being 

b y a former husband of her mother when she was between the ages of 

three and six, and another assault on one occasion by a neighbor. 

At trial, one of the important issues presented to the jury was the 

credibility of MJ and the possibility that she had confused or 

fantasized encounters with Exline because of previous assaults by 

other men. 3 

Because of her family situation, it appears that the Colorado 

Department of Social Services had developed a file on MJ and her 

family prior to the alleged assault by Exline. Prior to trial, 

Exline moved the El Paso County District Court for discovery, and 

for the state court to conduct an in camera review, of those social 

service records. 

Colorado Revised Statutes§ 19-10-115(1) (a), (2) (a), (f) (1986 

Repl. Vol. BB) provides in pertinent part that: 

(1) (a) Except as provided in this section, reports of 

child abuse or neglect and the name and address of any 

child, family, or informant or any other identifying 

information contained in such reports shall be 

confidential and shall not be public information. 

3 MJ was nine years old at the time of the alleged assaults 

by Exline. There were no eyewitnesses to assaults and the only 

corroborating physical evidence were "hickeys" three people 

observed on her chest. 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 6 
* * * 

( 2) Only the following persons or agencies shall be 

given access to child abuse or neglect records and 

reports: 

* * * 

(a) The law enforcement agency, district attorney, 

or county department investigating a report of known or 

suspected child abuse or neglect or treating a child or 

family which is the subject of the report and, in 

addition to said reports and records, the law enforcement 

agency, district attorney, or county department shall 

have access to the state central registry of child 

protection for information under the name of the child or 

the suspected perpetrator. 

* * * 

(f) A court, upon its finding that access to such 

records may be necessary for determination of an issue 

before such court, but such access shall be limited to in 

camera inspection unless the court determines that public 

disclosure of the information contained therein is 

necessary for the resolution of an issue then pending 

before it .•.• (Emphasis supplied) 

Under Colorado law, when Exline moved for discovery of and an 

in camera view by the court of the social service records as they 

might pertain to MJ's credibility and sexual assaults by other 

individuals, he was required to make an offer of proof that access 

to the records was "necessary for determination of an issue" in his 

case. People v. District Court of Denver, 743 P. 2d 432, 436 

(Colo. 1987). He made this offer: 

Your Honor, I believe that if the children are going to 

be testifying, then anything in those ( Department of 

Social Services) reports relating to credibility, I 

think, would be crucial to the defense in this case. Uh, 

furthermore, I believe that whether or not those records 

should be disclosed possibly they should be produced to 

the Court and then let the Court decide, after reviewing 

the records as to which ones we would be entitled to. 

At this time, the prosecutor denied that he had access to the 

reports and stated that "nobody from the Department of Social 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 7 
Services or anybody connected with the D & N will be testifying in 

this case. And again, those are confidential records which are not 

within my control. 11 It appears that two of the expert witnesses 

for the prosecution made use of those records in preparing for 

their testimony against Exline. 

As noted, the state court denied Exline's motion for review of 

the records, finding that Exline had failed to show a "particularized need" for them. The trial court also found that the 

prosecution had no control over the records. 

As the district court noted, the Colorado statute which 

governed Exline's request is similar to the Pennsylvania statute 

involved in the Ritchie case, and we agree that "Exline made an 

equally strong, if not more specific, offer of proof that the 

records 'may be necessary' to the determination of his guilt or 

innocence than did Ritchie. " Under these circumstances, the 

district court properly concluded that Exline's rights under the 

due process clause were violated by the trial court's failure to 

review the DDS records in camera. 

A similar result was reached by this Court in Hopkinson v. 

Shillinger, 866 F . 2d 1185, 1220-1221 (10th Cir. 1989) where we 

held that although a defendant could not point to specific 

exculpatory information in records he had never seen, he was 

entitled to an in camera inspection of those records under Ritchie. 

In this appeal, the state contends that Exline' s habeas corpus 

petition should have been dismissed, without possibility of retrial 

because, if he had exercised "reasonable diligence," he could have 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 8 
obtained the requested information by other means. In this respect 

the state now claims that Exline had a chance to show a particularized need for the social service records because he had been 

given access to a "juvenile/dependency neglect file" which 

contained information from which he could have made his showing of 

need. This claim was never made by the state in the appeals 

reviewed in the Colorado appellate courts and the state's position 

is not supported by any evidence which appears in the transcript 

concerning proceedings on July 28, 1986, when Exline•s motion was 

denied • 4 

When the federal district court first returned the case to the 

state court for an in camera hearing, the state court was not asked 

to determine whether it should or should not review the social 

service record, and it was not asked to re-interpret what had 

occurred at the time of the original hearing on Exline's motion in 

1986. 

4 In the Transcript of proceedings of July 28, 1986, found in 

the record on appeal here, there is no discussion of any offer of 

access to a "juvenile case file" from which Exline could have made 

a showing of "particularized need". The first mention of any 

juvenile file appears in the Certificate of Compliance prepared by 

the state trial judge dated October 10, 1991. 

Exline has filed a motion to strike the State's brief raising 

an argument which is not supported by the record on appeal, and 

both parties have filed motions to supplement the record concerning 

the existence of a "juvenile case file". 

Since we have concluded that the district court properly found 

that Exline's request was sufficient under Ritchie, any further 

discussion of a "particularized need" for information is 

unnecessary. 

In view of our disposition of the matter, the Motion to strike 

the State's brief, and all Motions to supplement the record on 

appeal will be denied. 

9 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 9 
The state trial court has yet to make the finding required by 

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie--that is "to determine whether the records 

contain information that probably would have changed the outcome of 

Exline' s trial." If the outcome would not have been changed, or if 

the nondisclosure was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," then no 

further action need be taken by the state trial court. If appropriate findings to that effect cannot be made, then Exline must be 

given a new trial. 

Appellee's motion to strike appellant's reply brief and the 

motions of appellee and appellant to supplement the record on 

appeal are DENIED. The judgment is AFFIRMED. 

10 

Appellate Case: 91-1424 Document: 010110165557 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 10