THIRD DIVISION Decem ber 31, 2008

No. 1-07- 0395 THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS, ) A ppe al f rom ) the C i

rcui t Court Peti tion er-A ppel l ee, ) of C ook County . ) v. ) ) K.S., a Mi nor, ) Honorable ) Noreen

Dal y , Re sp on den

t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CEQUIN

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Resp ond ent , K. S. , a 12- year- old boy, was adjud icat ed d elinquent base d up on a finding that he had com

mi tt ed the off

ense of aggravated cri

mi nal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16 (c )(2 )(i ) (W est 20 06 )). Sp ec i f

i ca l l y , the c i rc ui t cou rt f oun d th at th e S tate h ad prov en K .S. gui l ty of knowi ngl y i nserti ng hi s penis i nto t he m out h of V.W ., who was under ni ne y ears of age wh

en the act was comm

itted, for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratif

ic ation. K.S. was decl

ared a war d o f the co ur t and s ent ence d t o a t er m of five years ’ pr oba t ion wit h elect ro nic monit or ing and juv enile sex offen der t reatment. T he ci

rcuit cou rt ad moni shed K.S. that he was classif ied as a

“ sexu al pre da tor” a nd woul d b e re qui

red to reg i ster un

der th e Il l i noi s S ex Of f en der Re gi stra

ti on Act (SORA) (730 ILCS 150/1 et se q. (West 2006) ) and K.S. signed and i ni tialed the SORA1-07-0395

-2-

notifi cation form. On appeal, K.S. contends t hat: (1) the circuit court violated his due process right s by refus ing t o c ond uct an in camera re v i ew of th e s ch ool re cordsf or th e th re e S tate wit ne ss es , C. K. , P. T . , an d Q . T . ; ( 2) se ct io n 5 - 10 1( 3) o f t he Ju ve nile C o ur t Ac t o f 19 87 ( Ju ve nile Co ur t Act ) ( 705 ILC S 4 05/ 5- 101 (3 ) ( West 200 6) ) is unc ons t itu t ional bec aus e it d enied K. S. t he r igh t t o a ju ry t r ial; an d ( 3) t his c o ur t sho uld r ema nd K. S. ’s ca se so t ha t he ca n be pr o pe r ly ad m oni sh ed re ga rdi n g s ecti on

3- 5 ( 73 0 I LC S 1 50 /3 -5 (West Su pp . 20 07 )), a n

ew prov i si on to SORA, which

all ows a juveni

le the oppor tunity to pet ition f or t ermi nation of his registrat ion as a sex of f en der af ter f i ve yea rs of regi stra ti on. For the f ol l owi ng rea sons, we re

man d th i s c as e f or t he circ uit co ur t t o c ond uct an in camera revi ew of the s chool re cords i

n qu esti on. Pr ior t o t rial, K. S. sent subp oe nas t o t he Bu ckingha m Scho ol, wher e K. S. , C .K. , P .T ., and Q.T. had been students, and the Chicago Board of Educat ion requesting al l i ncident repo rts, Ind i vi dual ized Ed ucati on Progra m s (I.E.P.’ s), sta

temen ts, psy chologi cal reports an

d di sci pli na ry r ep o r t s inv o lving C. K. , P. T . , an d Q . T . T he Ch ica go Bo ar d o f E du ca t io n r es po nd ed t ha t it wo uld no t r ele as e t he r ec o r ds wit ho ut a c o ur t o r de ro rwr it t en r ele as e fr o m eit he rt he st ud en t s o rt he ir pa ren ts/gua rdi ans. K.S. th

en f i l ed a m oti on f or a c ourt order di

recti ng the Ch i cago B oard

of Ed uca t ion t o r elease any and a ll I.E .P .’s , p sycho log ical rep or t s, s t at ement s, incide nt re po rt s, a nd disciplinary r eco rd s involving C. K., P. T. , a nd Q. T. In his mo t ion, K.S . a rg ued t hat beca use t he three witnes ses attended a therapeutic day school, i t was reasonabl

e to assume that they

had me ntal or cogni

tive i mpa irm ents. In response, the State asserted that t he records were priv il eged under the Illi

nois School Student Records Act (105 ILCS 10/1 et seq . (West 2006)) and that K.S. had n ot shown that the records containe d any ma terial or relevan

t inf ormation. The State argued1-07-0395

1 T his S t at e w it ne ss ’s na me is sp elle d mu lt iple wa ys in t he r ec o r d. K. S. us es “C. K. , ” w hile -3- that t he m

ere fact t hat the three wi

tnesses attended a therapeuti c school di d not show that t hey were i nc omp eten

t to t estif y . The circu it co ur t sug ges t ed t hat a co mpet ency hea ring sho uld be s ched uled t o e nable t he court to observ

e an d exam i ne the wi tnes ses ’ de

mean or and how they resp onde d to questi

ons. I n his rep ly m

ot ion, K.S . a rg ued t hat a co mpet ency hea ring w ou ld be fut ile if he did no t have t he op po rt unit y to first re view t he wit nesse s’ sc hoo l reco rd s. K. S. asse rt ed t hat he wa s re que st ing t he r eco rd s t o e xamine the po ssibili t y of co mpet ency and t o p re par e fo r c ro ss- examinat ion o f the wi tness es. Ci

tin g his right to cross-exa

m i ne a nd i m peach the wi tness es aga

i nst h i m , K.S. re que st ed t hat t he r eco rd s be t ur ned o ver t o his c ou nsel o r t o t he co ur t for an in camera examinat ion. K.S . e xplained t hat he wa s re que st ing an in camera i ns pe cti on b ec au se

he di d n ot know wh at the re cords woul d con tai n. The c i rc ui t cou rt d en i ed K .S. ’s re qu est to order

th e rel ea se of th e rec ord s. In

re sp on se to K.S.’s argum

ent that the recor ds could contai n excul pator y e vi dence, the ci

rcuit court found that i t “ coul d n ot at al l f i nd tha t the re c oul d e ve r b e e xc ul pa tory ev i denc e i n th e w i tne ss es ’ prior ed uc ati on f i l es ” a nd tha t “ the re [ wa s] noth

i ng rai se d f rom a f ac tual sta nd poi nt i n [ K .S.’ s] moti on tha t woul d c au se me a t thi s p oi nt to [ al l ow] a f i sh i ng ex pe di ti on i nto th ose youn g ki ds ’ e duc ati

on fi l es.” The ci

rcui t court o ff

ered to conduct a com

petency hea rin g f or the wi tness es, b ut K.S. declin ed and stated that he needed ac cess to the records in question prior to any com petency he ari ng. At t rial, t he evide nce e st ablished t hat K.S . a nd t he St at e’s w itnes ses, C. K. 1 , P.T. an d Q.T.,1-07-0395

t he St at e us es “K. K.” The re is no d isput e t hat t he pa rt ies ar e r efer ring t o t he sa me individual, a nd we wil l u se “C . K. ” t hr o ug ho ut t his o pi nio n fo rco ns ist en cy. -4- all at t end ed Bu ck ingh am S cho o l, a t her ap eu t ic d ay sc ho o l. O n Ma y 31 , 2 00 5, t he fo ur bo ys left the s chool wi

thout perm

i ssi on. Th e ev i den ce showe d tha

t on that da

te, at ab out 1 p.m ., V.W ., a f i ve -year-ol

d gi rl , wasplay

i ng i n h er b acky ard on the South

Si de of Ch i cago, Il l i noi s. The y

ard wassurroun

ded b y a f ence a nd th e gate l eadi ng to the yard was held cl

osed b y a wooden

sti ck. V.W. was pl

ay in g in her bac kya rd alone wh

en sh e heard a kn

ock at t he gate. Someone rem oved t he st ick fro m the g at e, and t he fo ur boys a ppr oa ched V. W. K. S. t old V. W. t o fo llow him. V. W. and K .S. walked i

nto t he al le y, wi th the ot her boy

s f oll owing b ehi

nd. K.S. told V.W., “If

you do th i s f or m e, I’ l l gi v e y ou s om e m on ey.”K .S. th en

l owe re d h i s p an ts a n d p l ac ed h i s p en i s i n to V.W.’s m out h, who was squattin

g in front of hi

m. V.W . ran hom

e and told h

er mother what had happ ened . C .K. , P .T . a nd Q. T. t est ifi ed a gainst K.S . a t t he ad

judicat or y hearing, aft er which t he ci rcu i t cou rt f oun d K .S. to b e del

i nq ue nt b as ed

on a f i nd i ng tha t he ha d c om m i tted th e of f ense of aggra va ted cri m i na l sex ual abuse . On ap pe al, K. S. firs t co nt en ds t ha t his d ue pr o ce ss r igh t s w er e v io lat ed wh er e t he cir cu it co ur t denied his req ues t t o c ond uct an in camera revi ew of the s chool re cords i

nv olv i ng C .K., P. T. and Q .T . K. S. maintains t hat he nee ded t hese do cument s t o d ecide whet her t o c hallenge t he wit nesse s’ co mpet ency and t o p re par e fo r c ro ss- examinat ion t o q ues t ion t heir ability t o o bser ve and recol l ect the ev en t and to im peac h them wi th i nf orma tion to show thei

r bi as or m otive to li e. K. S . as se r t s t ha t t he r ec o r ds co nt ain ed po t en t iall y mat er ial i nfo rmat io n w he r e a ll t hr ee bo ys attended Bu

cki ngh am School , whi

ch e nroll ed studen

ts wi th be hav i oral a nd m ental problems. K.S.1-07-0395

-5-

also n otestha t, f ol l owi ng the i nc i de nt i n q ue sti on, C.K. wa s p l ac ed

i nto a ps y ch i atri c f ac i l i ty f or three weeks. A tri al cou rt’ s dec i si on on whether to l

i m i t di sc ove ry i s rev i ew ed f or an ab us e of di scre tion . Pe o ple v. Williams , 209 I ll . 2d 227, 234 (200 4). Ho wever, t hi s court reviews de novo whether a def

endan t was denied due process and, if s o, whether that denial was prej udic ia

l. See People v . Oli

ver , 368 Ill . App. 3d 690, 695 (2006), citin g Pe o ple v. Ma t t is , 367 Ill . App. 3d 432, 435-3 6 (200 6) (“b eca

use the e sse ntial f acts c once

rni ng w ha t hap pen ed at the gran

d j ury proceedin gs are undisputed, we revi ew de novo whether d ef en da nt s uf f ere d a pre j udi ci al deni al of due process ”). Section 6 of the Il

li nois School Student Records Act provides, i n pertin ent part, as foll ows: “(a) No school student records or inf ormation contai

ned therei n m ay be rel eased, transferred, d iscl

osed o r ot herwise dissemi nated, except as foll

ows:
*** (5) Pursuant to a court o rder, pro vi ded that the parent shal

l b e gi ven prompt wri tten n otice upon r ece i pt of s uch order *** .” 105 ILCS 10/6(a )(5) (W est 200 6). K .S. ackn owl ed ge s th e wi tn es se s’ pri

v acy i n terests u n der the I l l i

n oi s S ch ool Studen t Re cordsA ct, but argues that these in

terests are o vercome

by K.S.’s right to util

iz e potentially

ma terial i nf orma tion contai ne d i n the wi tnes ses ’ s chool re cords. K.S. m ai ntai ns that the ci rcui t court sho uld have co nduc t ed a n in camera heari ng to determi

ne wh ether the school records contain ed1-07-0395

-6-

i nf orma tion relev an t to t he wi tnes ses ’ com

peten cy to testif y . Illinois co ur t s have held t hat evidenc e o f a wit ness's menta l cond itio n is admissible to t he ex ten t tha t i t be ars on th e c red i bi l i ty of the wi tne ss ’s tes ti mony , an d i s th usa p erm i ss i bl e a rea of i m peac hm en t. People v . Plum

me r , 318 Ill . App. 3d 268, 279 (2000). Ho wever, bef ore such evi den ce m ay be i ntroduc ed, i

ts rel ev ance m ust b e establ

i shed. Plum

me r , 318 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 279. A tw o- st ep p ro ced ur e fo r d isco ver y of ment al healt h re co rd s has be en es t ablished. First , t he defend ant must sufficient ly show t hat t he r equ est ed r eco rd s ar e mat er ial and r elevant t o t he wi tnes s’ s cre di

bi l i ty. People v . McMill

an , 2 39 I ll. App. 3d 4 67, 487 (1 993 ). If t hat is do ne, t he dis covery i

s perm is si ble. However, if

the wi tness or therapist asse

rts his statut ory pri

vi le ge, then an in camera he ari

ng i s held on th

i s que sti on. McMi

ll an , 239 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 487. In People v . Bean , 137 Il

l . 2d 65 ( 1990) , our suprem e court ap prove d the

procedu re wher eby the t rial co ur t co nduc t ed a n in camera in spection of

the wi tness’s me ntal h eal th records t o d et er mine whet her t hey co nt ained r elevant informat ion t hat co uld be u sed t o impea ch t he wi tnes s. Bean , 1 37 I ll. 2d a t 99- 100 . While t he r eco rd s in Bean were priv

il eged under the Men

tal Heal th and Dev

el opmen tal Di sabi li ties Conf ide ntial ity Act (Ill . Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 91⁄2, par. 801 et seq .) th e c our t h el d th at s uc h pri v i l eg e m us t gi v e w ay to a d ef en da n t’s si xth an d f our tee n th am en dm en t ri gh ts b ut on l y to th e exten

t th at a trial cou rt d ete rm i n ed th e p ri v i l eg ed i n f orm ati on to be relev an t and i m peac hi ng. Bean , 137 I ll . 2d at 100. Just as a trial j udge may li mi t cro ssexam in ation to prevent inqui

ries that are irrelevant, repet itiv e, or to o t im

e-consumin

g, t hat harass a w it ne ss , o rt ha t t hr ea t en t o dis t r ac t a ju ry fro m t he ac t ua l iss ue s by u nd uly e mph as izing de t ails of the wi tness’s li fe, the j udge m

ay al so li mi t a defen dant’s acces s to st atuto ril y pri vi le ged1-07-0395

-7-

i nf orma tion . Bean , 1 37 I ll. 2d a t 100 -0 1. In Bean , our supreme court held that the def endan t was not denied hi s sixth amendm ent r ights of co nfronta tion and cr oss- exami nation by the tr ial

cou rt ’s re fusal t o o rd er disclo sur e o f a wit ness’ s ment al healt h re co rd s follo wing an in camera rev i ew of the re cords. Bean , 137 Ill . 2d at 99-100. In People v . Phi

pps , 98 Ill . App. 3d 413 (1981) , t his c o ur t he ld t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t did not ab use i ts di scre tion i n pe rm i ttin g the di scl osure of the wi tnes ses ' ps

y chi atri c rec ords, wh

ere t he w it nes se s s uffe re d fr o m ps ychia t ric dis o rd er s s o se ver e t hat t hey w er e lo ng- t er m re sid ent s o f a men t al h o sp it al a nd t he y we r e in st it ut io na lize d a t t he t ime o f t he alle ge d o ffen se s a nd at t he t ime of tri al . Phi pps , 98 Ill . App. 3d at 414-15. T hi s court st ated: “W hen , as in the in stant case, a statut ory evi dentia ry pri vi le ge comes i

n di rect co nflic t wit h a de fen da nt ’s co nst it ut io na l rig ht s o f co nfr o nt at io n a nd du e p r o ce ss , we ho ld that t he f ormer m ust give way

so that t he f

undam ental prot ections of

our crim in al jus tice system wi ll not be abrogated.” Phi

pps , 98 Ill . App. 3d at 417. This co ur t subs equ ent ly narro wed t he ho lding in Phi pps , in Peop l e v . Wal

ton , 107 Ill . App. 3d 698 , 7 03 ( 198 2) . I n W al

ton this court stated: “We d o no t de em t he r ule o f Phi pps to be so b road asto ne ga

te the n ec es si ty of est ablishing the per t inence o f a wit ness’ psychiat ric co ndit ion o r hist or y to t he cre di bi l i ty of hi s or he r testi mony be f ore s uc h e vi denc e m ay be i ntr oduc ed or bef ore a witness’ ot herwi se conf ide ntial me ntal h eal th records may

be sub poenaed or discovered.” W al

ton , 107 Ill . App. 3d at 703.1-07-0395

-8-

This co ur t aga in cons ider ed ba lancing a d efenda nt ’s sixt h and fo ur t eent h amendment right s wit h a wit ness’ s right t o c onfide nt iality of his ment al healt h re co rd s in People v . Dace , 114 Ill . App. 3d 908 (1983) . I n Dace , the Stat e’s ch ie f wi tness ha d been in volun taril y c omm itted to a m

ental he al th ce nter l ess than two ye ars b ef

ore the of f en ses occurre d. Dace , 114 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 915. In an in camera conferen

ce, the trial

court reviewed the wi

tness’s fi le and ruled that the records were privileged and too old to be relev ant, and barred t he defen

dant from questionin

g the witness conc ern i ng h er m en tal history . Dace , 11 4 I ll. A pp . 3d at 91 2. T he ap pe llat e c o ur t st at ed t ha t if the witness or t herapist in vokes the st atut ory privi

lege to refuse to discl

ose mental h

ealth records, “the t rial co ur t sho uld ho ld an in camera hearin g [in] the presence of prosecut ors and defense co unse l to det er mine which informat ion is r elevant or mate rial t o [ t he] impeachment of t he witne ss.” Dace , 1 14 I ll. App. 3d a t 915 . T his co ur t fou nd t hat t he t rial co ur t sho uld have per mitt ed t he r equ est ed d isco ver y where t he wit ness’ s t est imony was t he o nly evidence o f the de f en da n t’s pa rti ci pa ti on i n th e a l l eg ed cri me. Th i s c our t sta ted th at, “ [c ]on

f ron ted wi th arti cul ab l e ev i den ce that rai ses

a rea sona bl e i nqu i ry of a wi tnes s’ [s] m

en tal he al th h i story , a court should permi

t a defen dant to discover that hi story.” Dace , 114 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 915. The court expl ai ned that a thorough exam in ation of a wi

tness’s credibil ity is especially

im port ant when

that testi m ony wil l be determ i na tiv e of the def endan t’s gu i l t or in noce nc e. Dace , 114 Ill . App. 3d at 913. In People v . McMill an , 239 Ill . App. 3d 467, 488 (1993), t hi s court held that the trial court ’s den

ia l of the defe ndan t’s request for the product ion of psy chi atric and ps

yc hological evalua t ions o f the co defend ant who t est ifi ed fo r t he St at e, wit hou t an in camera he ari ng , wa s n ot1-07-0395

-9-

r ev er sible er r o rwh er e t he ba se s d efe nd an t as se r t ed fo rsu ch pr o du ct io n ha d b ee n c lea r ly pr es en ted to th e j ur y . Th i s c our t n oted th at c ode f

en da n t ad m i tted th at h e h ad prob l em s wi th alco hol, as d isclos ed in t he r epo rt , c od efenda nt ’s ment al cap acit y was evid ent fro m his tes t imony at tr i al, a n d c ode f en da n t wa s th orough l y cross -e x am

i n ed as to i n con siste n t sta tem en ts h e m ade to pol i ce. McMi

ll an , 23 9 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 488 . How ever, thi

s c ourt em

phas ize d the i

m porta nc e of co nduc t ing an in camera heari ng i n such cases b y s tating: “W hi le we strongly

urge the circui

t cour ts to conduct such i nspections, and n

ot e the better pr oc edu re in this ca se w ou ld have be en fo r t he co ur t t o p er for m such a n inspec t ion o f the r ep o r t , sinc e t he t hr ee ba se s d efe nd an t as se r t s fo rdiv ulg ing t his r ep o r t we r e c lea r ly pr ese nt ed t o t he jur y, t he failure t o c ond uct an in camera insp ec t io n w as no t r ev er sible error. ” McMi

ll an , 239 Ill . App. 3d at 488. In t his case , t he circ uit co ur t sho uld have co nduc t ed a n in camera i ns pe cti on of the school records in que stion. Al

l three b oys attended a therapeutic school an

d there was evi

dence that C.K . wasplace d i

nto a psychi atri c i

nstituti on sh ortly af ter the i nc i den t. Further, the

record supp orts K.S.’ s as serti

on on a ppea l that sc hool pers onnel

i nterv i ewed C.K ., P.T. an

d/or Q.T. reg ard i ng the i nc i de nt. Th e te sti

mony f rom the threeboy

s w asthe onl y di rect ev i denc e of defen dant’s partici

pation i n the al le ged crim

e. Therefore, a t hor ou gh exa minatio n of t he wit nesse s’ cr edibility was e spe cially impor t ant wher e t hat t est imony was d et er minative o f the defen dant’s gui lt or in nocence. See Dace , 114 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 913. In light of o ur co nclusio n t hat t he circ uit co ur t sho uld have co nduc t ed a n in camera revi ew of the s chool re cords f

or the th ree State w

i tnes ses , we remand the

caus e f or such he ari ng.1-07-0395

-10-

Tha t nec ess ari

l y means tha

t we do not now reac

h the rem ai ni ng p endi ng i ssues i n th i s opi ni on. See Pe o ple v. Da vis , No . 10 50 92 , slip o p. At 17 ( No ve mbe r20 , 20 08 ) . On r ema nd , t he cir cu it co ur t shall art iculat e pr op er findings o f fact and c onc lusions of law and s hall fi le the m with t he clerk of t his co ur t wit hin 60 d ays o f the issuanc e o f the mandat e in this mat t er , a cco mpanied by the record o f the proceedi ngs on rem

and. See Da vis , sl

i p op. at 1 7. A

f ter th e p roce edi

ng s on remand h ave been com

pleted, t hi s court wil

l an nounce its judgm

ent on any pendi

ng i ssues. Caus e rem

anded wi th di rections. MUR PHY, P.J ., and THEIS, J ., conc ur.