Opinion ID: 2428851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: wilma anderson's incriminating oral statement

Text: The most significant piece of evidence supporting the otherwise uncorroborated testimony of the complaining witness came in through the testimony of the social worker who investigated the case for the Cabinet for Human Resources. She testified that, having first interviewed the child, she then interviewed the appellant, Wilma: A: ... And one of the things she said  Appellant's Counsel: I object to this. A:  in response to the question, what did you do  Appellant's Counsel: Object to this, Your Honor. Court: Overruled. A:  what did you do to try to protect your daughter? Your daughter says these things have happened, what did you do to try to protect her? She said something about, well, one time I stopped it. I dragged her out of his bed. Q: And this  excuse me. And this was on the 18th. A: Yes, it was. Q: And she told you that at one time she had stopped it. She dragged her out of his bed? A: Yes, she did. This testimony, if believed, incriminates both appellants. It implies William was guilty of the charges being made against him, and Wilma knowingly permitted the child in her custody to be abused. The social worker was then asked whether it was her practice to take notes or someway memorialize the conversations that you have pursuant to these interviews, and the following took place: A. We do take notes, and we try to be as specific and as accurate, of course as possible. Q: And did you, after your interview with Ms. Hans [now Anderson], make such notes? A: Yes, I did. Q: And have you had an opportunity to review your notes before you came to court today? A: Yes. Q: And do your notes reflect that you recorded that statement as made by Wilma Hans on that date? A: My notes do reflect that is  Appellant's Counsel: I am going to object to this. Court: Overruled. Appellant's Counsel: Your Honor, the notes weren't provided in discovery. Witness: It's part of the case record, which I understand has been made available to both attorneys. Appellant's Counsel: It has not been made available to the defense. Court: Let's don't argue about it. She answered the question. Go ahead. The appellant had sought discovery of this material as authorized by RCr 7.24. This rule requires the commonwealth to disclose the substance of any oral incriminating statement known by the attorney for the commonwealth to have been made by a defendant to any witness, and to permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photocopy any relevant... written or recorded statements or confessions made by the defendant. To protect the confidentiality of the records of the Cabinet for Human Resources, in response to the appellants' discovery demand the trial court had entered an order requiring the records in question to be turned over to the court, and this order specified: Thereafter, the Court shall make an incamera inspection of the records and shall allow the Defendants to have access to those portions of the records which are either discoverable or exculpatory. Clearly this critical information used against both appellants was discoverable. Nevertheless, the trial court notified counsel by letter that there were no items of this nature contained in the records. Whether the mistake that was made was inadvertent or intentional, and whether the mistake was made by the Commonwealth's Attorney or by the trial court, or both, is immaterial. In either case, the on-going discovery order and the mandates of RCr 7.24 required the exclusion of this evidence when it had not been provided on discovery. Failure to provide discovery had a double-barreled prejudicial effect. First, it denied the defense the opportunity to prepare for and refute the incriminating evidence by cross-examination or other proof, if such was possible. Further, it denied these appellants the opportunity to seek separate trials on grounds that an incriminating statement which was admissible against the one making it was hearsay as to the other defendant, but was being used against both. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968) and Cosby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 776 S.W.2d 367 (1989). Indeed, these two appellants, who shared the same attorney, suddenly had a conflict of interest problem thrust upon them in the middle of their trial. The issue here is not when and whether CHR records are entitled to the cloak of confidentiality. When information disclosed in those records is discoverable in a criminal case, either because it is exculpatory or because the records reflect incriminating statements which may be used against the accused, those records must be provided.