Opinion ID: 2001419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: use of confidential juvenile records

Text: Although uncomplained of at trial or on appeal, we take plain notice of the use of confidential juvenile records to impeach the testimony of the alleged victim. Medical records gathered during juvenile court proceedings intended to protect the alleged victim as a juvenile in need were extensively used in the trial to attack her character. Confidential juvenile records are generally inaccessible. In 1990, while the alleged victim was still a minor, she was held to be a juvenile in need of assistance as described in Neb.Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3) (Reissue 1993). Under the direction of the Department of Social Services, she received medical care and counseling. In the course of her treatment, she and her mother shared confidential information with medical professionals. Records of her medical treatment were necessarily filed in the county court sitting as a juvenile court. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-2,108(2) (Reissue 1993) states that the medical, psychological, psychiatric, and social welfare reports and the records of juvenile probation officers as they relate to individual proceedings in the juvenile court shall not be open to inspection, without order of the court. Further, in all cases arising under § 43-247(3)(a), as was the alleged victim's proceeding before the juvenile court, the court shall grant access to the confidential record information only in three limited situations. § 43-2,108(3). None of those situations apply here. In a motion for discovery dated June 30, 1993, Cisneros requested [t]he results and reports of physical or mental examinations, specifically including any psychological tests, examinations, or reports of [the alleged victim] which were made within the last three years including any which may be in the County Court records.... Cisneros asserted that the requested discovery was essential to his defense and was not requested primarily for the purpose of harassment. Cisneros did not state why the discovery was essential to his defense. According to its journal entry of July 6, the district court ordered that defense counsel have access to the alleged victim's juvenile court records if the county attorney had access to the files. The county attorney does have access to juvenile court records in some circumstances not present here. See, e.g., § 43-2,108(3). A trial court has discretion in the matter of discovery where material is sought for impeachment purposes. State v. Trammell, 231 Neb. 137, 435 N.W.2d 197 (1989). However, a witness may assert that the information sought is privileged or protected and resist discovery. Trammell, supra; State v. Beach, 215 Neb. 213, 337 N.W.2d 772 (1983). Section 43-2,108(2) and (3) provided ample support for the county attorney to resist Cisneros' motion for discovery of the alleged victim's juvenile records. Cisneros' motion lacked specific facts to create any reasonable grounds to believe that the failure to produce the information would impair his right to confront the alleged victim. In Beach, the defendant sought the juvenile records of the alleged victim in order to introduce her prior juvenile adjudications for impeachment purposes. The trial court precluded the use of any prior juvenile adjudications. The defendant claimed he was denied his right to effectively confront and cross-examine witnesses. We noted that Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), provides that a criminal defendant must be allowed to introduce evidence that a witness for the state who implicated and identified the defendant had a prior juvenile record in order to show that the witness' testimony was somehow coerced and motivated by the state's threat to revoke his probation. However, in Beach, we held that Davis did not permit the defense to use the victim's juvenile records in order to cast her as a dishonest juvenile offender in front of the jury. On July 23, 1993, the pretrial conference was had. At that time, the county attorney had not produced the requested records. Counsel and the court discussed whether the alleged victim's medical and juvenile court records were subject to discovery pursuant to State v. Trammell, supra. No mention was made of the statutory confidentiality of juvenile court records. Trammell sets out a procedure to be followed when a defendant seeks privileged information about the victim for impeachment purposes. If the victim refuses to waive the privilege, the trial court can order a hearing. At the hearing, the defendant must establish that his right of confrontation is likely to be impaired if he does not have access to the information. If the defendant meets this burden, and with the victim's consent, the court can conduct an in-camera inspection of the confidential information. If necessary, the court can then turn over to the defendant any relevant material for the purpose of cross-examination. If the victim refuses to consent to the in-camera inspection and/or subsequent release of relevant information, then the court may be obliged to strike the victim's direct testimony. The county attorney did not assert that the alleged victim's juvenile records were not open to inspection pursuant to § 43-2,108(2) and (3) and State v. Beach, supra . The county attorney did not invoke the protections afforded by Trammell. At the suggestion of the trial judge, the county attorney without objection contacted the alleged victim and obtained her permission to turn the sealed records over to the defense. The fact the records were made available does not necessarily mean they are admissible. However, using information from the alleged victim's juvenile court records, the defense cross-examined her and her mother using information obtained from the juvenile records. The resulting record leads one to question who was on trial, the alleged victim or Cisneros. Few if any objections were made to this line of questioning. For example, during the alleged victim's testimony, the county attorney objected when the defense attempted to question her regarding a hospitalization some 2 years prior to the alleged assault. The court sustained the county attorney's relevance objection. However, when the defense called the therapist who treated the alleged victim during that hospitalization, no objection was made. The use of such records in this trial tarnished the proceedings. The trial record reveals the judge's frustration. We likewise do not wish to allow the abuses apparent in the record to pass without comment.