Opinion ID: 2630590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: constitutionality of rape crisis counselor privilege

Text: ¶ 13 On appeal, Gomez first argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that it did not have the authority to conduct an in camera review of the Center's records because the Act rendered those records privileged. According to Gomez, the trial court's conclusion and refusal to review the Center's records in camera infringed his constitutional right to a fair trial. In making his constitutional argument, Gomez asserts, Under Utah R. Evid. 506(d)(1), the Fourteenth Amendment, Ritchie, [1] and Cardall, [2] trial courts are obligated to review in camera, and if material, disclose to the defendant, the information that is germane to the defense. ¶ 14 The statutory privilege at issue here was created by the Confidential Communications for Sexual Assault Act, Utah Code Ann. § 78-3c-4 (1996), and is an absolute privilege under the circumstances of this case. The Act provides: The confidential communications between a victim and a sexual assault counselor [are] available to a third person only when: (1) the victim is a minor and the counselor believes it is in the best interests of the victim to disclose the confidential communication to the victim's parents; (2) the victim is a minor and the minor's parents or guardian [has] consented to disclosure of the confidential communication to a third party based upon representations made by the counselor that it is in the best interests of the minor victim to make such disclosure; (3) the victim is not a minor, has given consent, and the counselor believes the disclosure is necessary to accomplish the desired result of counseling; or (4) the counselor has an obligation under Title 62A, Chapter 4, to report information transmitted in the confidential communication. Id. § 78-3c-4. ¶ 15 In the instant case, Gallegos was not a minor when the confidential communications were made to the sexual assault counselor at the Center and the counselor was not obligated to report any of the information in the confidential communications under Title 62A, Chapter 4. [3] Moreover, Gallegos did not consent to the disclosure of the confidential communications. Therefore, because none of the exceptions to the privilege apply in this case and Gallegos did not consent to disclosure of the confidential communications, the privilege afforded the confidential communications between Gallegos and the sexual assault counselor at the Center is absolute. Under the statute, the trial court has no authority to compel either Gallegos or the Center to produce the Center's records for an in camera review. ¶ 16 It is precisely the absolute nature of the privilege provided in this particular statute that distinguishes this case from Ritchie and Cardall. Because the statutory privilege here is absolute, Ritchie and Cardall do not control this case as Gomez suggests. ¶ 17 In Ritchie, the defendant was charged with rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, incest, and corruption of his minor daughter. 480 U.S. at 43, 107 S.Ct. 989. The defendant's daughter reported the incidents of sexual abuse to the police, who referred the matter to the Pennsylvania Child and Youth Services agency (PCYS), a protective service agency charged with investigating cases of alleged mistreatment and neglect. Id. During pretrial discovery, Ritchie subpoenaed PCYS, seeking that agency's records concerning the daughter. Id. PCYS refused to comply with Ritchie's request for records, claiming that the records were privileged under Pennsylvania law. Id. The statute relied upon by PCYS required that all reports and other information gathered in the course of a PCYS investigation be kept confidential. Id. The requirement of confidentiality was subject to eleven exceptions, one of which provided that the agency could disclose reports and information to a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to a court order. Id. at 44, 107 S.Ct. 989. ¶ 18 In Ritchie, the United States Supreme Court held that if a defendant demonstrates that records protected by a qualified or conditional privilege contain evidence that is material to the defendant's defense, due process requires a trial court to review the privileged records in camera to determine whether they do, in fact, contain material evidence. The distinction between a qualified or conditional privilege and an absolute one was central to the Court's decision in that case. In holding that the defendant had a due process right to an in camera review of the privileged records in the case of the qualified privilege at issue in Ritchie, the Court explained: Although we recognize that the public interest in protecting this type of sensitive information is strong, we do not agree that this interest necessarily prevents disclosure in all circumstances. This is not a case where a state statute grants [P]CYS the absolute authority to shield its files from all eyes. Cf. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5945.1(b) (1982) (unqualified statutory privilege for communications between sexual assault counselors and victims). 480 U.S. at 57, 107 S.Ct. 989. ¶ 19 Immediately following this explanation that the qualified nature of the privilege at issue in Ritchie was key to its opinion in that case, the Court reiterated in a footnote, We express no opinion on whether the result in this case would have been different if the statute had protected the [P]CYS files from disclosure to anyone, including law-enforcement and judicial personnel. Id. at n. 14. The Court clearly limited its holding in Ritchie to the due process implications of a qualified or conditional privilege and left for another day the question of the effect and operation of an absolute privilege in this context. Id. ¶ 20 On appeal, Gomez merely relies on Ritchie and asserts that that decision controls in this case. It does not, and we do not rely on or apply Ritchie here. Gomez offers no legal analysis or argumentation that the Ritchie holding should be extended to encompass an absolute sexual assault counselor privilege. Gomez has failed to provide us with any argumentation or authority that would warrant stretching Ritchie beyond its current bounds. We will not make or develop Gomez's arguments for him. As we have all too often had to reiterate, `a reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.' State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988) (quoting Williamson v. Opsahl, 92 Ill.App.3d 1087, 48 Ill.Dec. 510, 416 N.E.2d 783, 784 (1981)); see also, e.g., Peterson v. Sunrider Corp., 2002 UT 43, n. 9, 48 P.3d 918; Associated Gen. Contractors v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2001 UT 112, ¶ 37 & n. 8, 38 P.3d 291 (citing myriad examples of inadequately briefed cases). ¶ 21 Gomez similarly relies on this court's decision in State v. Cardall, 1999 UT 51, 982 P.2d 79, to support his argument that he is entitled to have the trial court conduct an in camera review of Gallegos' privileged sexual assault counseling records. Again, his reliance is misplaced. ¶ 22 In Cardall, the defendant was charged with rape of a child. Id. at ¶ 1. Prior to trial, Cardall moved the court to conduct an in camera review of his victim accuser's school psychological records. Id. at ¶ 10. The trial court denied the motion. Id. ¶ 23 After his conviction by a jury, Cardall appealed, claiming that the trial court had erred in refusing to conduct the in camera review and that as a result he had been denied due process. In making his constitutional due process argument, Cardall relied on Ritchie. Id. at ¶ 27. ¶ 24 The privilege at issue in Cardall is found in rule 506 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Rule 506 states in relevant part that a patient has a privilege, during the patient's life, to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing (1) diagnosis made, treatment provided, or advice given, by a physician or mental health therapist, (2) information obtained by examination of the patient. Utah R. Evid. 506(b); see also Utah Code Ann. § 58-60-113 (1998) (Evidentiary privilege for mental health therapists regarding admissibility of any confidential communication in administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings is in accordance with Rule 506 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.). ¶ 25 We specifically recognized in Cardall that the privilege in rule 506 is not absolute, id. at ¶ 29, and noted the significant qualification to the rule where the rule provides that no privilege exists [as to] `a communication relevant to an issue of the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which that condition is an element of any claim or defense.' Id. (quoting Utah R. Evid. 506(d)(1)). ¶ 26 In deciding Cardall, this court simply applied Ritchie to the qualified privilege found in rule 506. Id. at ¶¶ 27-32. The Cardall decision follows the United States Supreme Court's reasoning in recognizing the qualified nature of the privilege in rule 506. Id. at ¶¶ 30-31. The Cardall decision does not provide any new or different constitutional analysis beyond that established in Ritchie. ¶ 27 On appeal, Gomez again merely asserts that Cardall, like Ritchie, states the legal rule governing this case, and his analysis and argument go no further than to urge us to apply those two cases. However, because Ritchie and Cardall, in adopting and applying Ritchie, hinge upon the distinction between qualified and absolute privileges and present a different case than the one at hand, those cases do not govern our decision here. Even if our decision in Cardall could be stretched to encompass an absolute privilege, Gomez has not offered any analysis, argumentation, or authority to support such an extension. Again, this court will not make Gomez's case on appeal for him. See Bishop, 753 P.2d at 450. ¶ 28 Besides simply relying on Ritchie and Cardall, Gomez asserts in two bald statements that the trial court's failure to conduct an in camera review infringed his constitutional rights. Gomez argues that under Utah R. Evid. 506(d)(1), [4] the Fourteenth Amendment, Ritchie, and Cardall, trial courts are obligated to review in camera, and if material, disclose to the defendant, the information that is germane to the defense. Gomez then concludes, The trial court incorrectly held that it did not have the authority to review the Rape Counseling Center documents and in doing so deprived [him] of his Constitutional right to a fair trial. ¶ 29 Other than his assertion that Ritchie and Cardall govern this case, Gomez offers no other independent constitutional analysis or authority supporting his two otherwise conclusory statements referencing the Fourteenth Amendment and his constitutional right to a fair trial. In this respect, Gomez has failed to adequately brief the constitutional issues in this case, and we therefore will not address them. See Peterson, 2002 UT 43 at n. 9, 48 P.3d 918 (declining to address inadequately briefed claim on appeal where claim was supported by [a] single, vague sentence without citation to the record or legal authority); State v. Gamblin, 2000 UT 44, ¶ 7, 1 P.3d 1108 (noting inadequacy of appellant's brief where brief failed to provide meaningful legal analysis and merely contain[ed] one or two sentences stating his argument generally ... and then broadly conclude[d] that [appellant] is entitled to relief); State v. Jaeger, 1999 UT 1, ¶ 31, 973 P.2d 404 (noting that adequate briefing `requires not just bald citation to authority but development of that authority and reasoned analysis based upon that authority' and refusing to consider constitutional arguments for inadequate briefing where appellant merely cited relevant constitutional provisions and four cases but without any meaningful analysis of that authority (citation omitted)); MacKay v. Hardy, 973 P.2d 941, 948 n. 9 (Utah 1998) (noting numerous examples of refusal to consider inadequately briefed issues). ¶ 30 Therefore, the trial court did not err as a matter of law in interpreting or applying the statutory privilege set forth in the Confidential Communications for Sexual Assault Act and when it concluded that none of the exceptions in the statute applied in the present case, thus rendering the privilege absolute. Moreover, the trial court did not err in concluding that it had no authority under the statute or relevant case law to conduct an in camera review of the Center's records concerning Gallegos. We do not reach Gomez's argument that the trial court denied him his right to due process or a fair trial because those constitutional claims were not adequately briefed.