Opinion ID: 1743976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due-Process Rights

Text: In support of its position that A.B.'s due-process rights of confrontation and cross-examination were not violated, DHS asserts that it did not shoulder the burden of calling A.B.'s accuser in the non-criminal administrative hearing. DHS also argues that A.B. was given a meaningful opportunity to subpoena and cross-examine adverse witnesses but waived this opportunity by failing to do so. In response, A.B. avers that when the government seeks to take away constitutionally protected interests of an individual through an accusation of criminal wrongdoing, the government should present its proof in a form against which effective defense can be made through confrontation and cross-examination, unless the government can show compelling reasons to limit confrontation. In essence, A.B. argues that DHS should have presented the testimony of his accuser. The United States Supreme Court has stated that [t]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S.Ct. 779, 58 L.Ed. 1363 (1914)). Furthermore, [i]n almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Id. at 269, 90 S.Ct. 1011. More specifically, the Supreme Court has extended the due-process rights of confrontation and cross-examination to certain types of administrative proceedings. Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959). In accordance with these principles, our court has recently reiterated that a party appearing before an administrative agency is entitled to due process in the proceedings. C.C.B. v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 368 Ark. 540, 247 S.W.3d 870 (2007). We have also held that a fair trial by a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process, and that this rule applies to administrative agencies as well as to courts. Id. at 545, 247 S.W.3d at 873. While it is well settled that an administrative proceeding is civil in nature and that the rules of evidence need not be strictly adhered to, id. at 548, 247 S.W.3d at 875, our court has recognized the due-process rights of confrontation and cross-examination in certain types of administrative proceedings. Smith v. Everett, 276 Ark. 430, 637 S.W.2d 537 (1982); see also Priest v. United Parcel Serv., 58 Ark.App. 282, 950 S.W.2d 476 (1997). In Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 442, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960), the Supreme Court set forth the standard used to determine when due process applies and, more importantly, what process is due: Due process is an elusive concept. Its exact boundaries are undefinable, and its content varies according to specific factual contexts. Thus, when governmental agencies adjudicate or make binding determinations which directly affect the legal rights of individuals, it is imperative that those agencies use the procedures which have traditionally been associated with the judicial process. On the other hand, when governmental action does not partake of an adjudication, as for example, when a general fact-finding investigation is being conducted, it is not necessary that the full panoply of judicial procedures be used. Therefore, as a generalization, it can be said that due process embodies the differing rules of fair play, which through the years, have become associated with differing types of proceedings. Whether the Constitution requires that a particular right obtain in a specific proceeding depends upon a complexity of factors. The nature of the alleged right involved, the nature of the proceeding, and the possible burden on that proceeding, are all considerations which must be taken into account. (Emphasis added.) In other words, whether administrative procedures are constitutionally sufficient requires analysis of the private and governmental interests that are affected. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). The United States Supreme Court has identified three factors that generally must be considered: the private interest that will be affected by the official action, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, and the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Id. The Court has also stated that [t]he ultimate balance involves a determination as to when, under our constitutional system, judicial-type procedures must be imposed upon administrative action to assure fairness. Id. at 348, 96 S.Ct. 893. In Mathews , the Court cautioned against wholesale transplantation of judicial rules of procedure to all administrative proceedings, in light of the vast differences in the function and nature of administrative agencies. Id. In short, [a]ll that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to `the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard,' to insure that they are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case. Id. at 349, 96 S.Ct. 893 (quoting Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 268-69, 90 S.Ct. 1011). The Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act acknowledges the rights of confrontation and cross-examination in administrative reviews of agency findings of child maltreatment. The Act provides that DHS's chief counsel is authorized to require the attendance of witnesses through the issuance of subpoenas when the testimony is necessary to adequately present the position of DHS, the investigating protective services agency, or the alleged offender. Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-512(c)(3) (Supp. 2007). Requests for subpoenas are required to be granted by DHS if the testimony or documents desired are considered necessary and material without being unduly repetitious of other available evidence. Id. § 12-12-513(a) (Repl.2003). A consideration of the factors set out in Mathews v. Eldridge, supra , leads us to the conclusion that the statutorily recognized due-process rights were not violated in the instant case. First, we have held that mere damage to reputation is not a liberty interest that must be protected. See C.C.B. v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., supra . Where a petitioner in the same situation as A.B. complained that placement on the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Central Registry might impede him from obtaining employment, we held that there was no liberty interest at stake because he had not shown that he had ever sought or was denied a specific employment opportunity due to his placement on the registry. Id. at 547, 247 S.W.3d at 875. Similarly, A.B. has shown nothing but the potential for prejudice. Second, in light of the statutory requirement that DHS issue subpoenas at the request of the alleged offender, we cannot say that the current procedures create a significant risk of erroneous deprivation of the alleged offender's due-process rights. Moreover, we cannot say that additional safeguards-namely, placing the burden of calling the accuser on DHS-would effectively decrease that already minute risk. When compared to the government's interest in presenting its case without unnecessarily traumatizing child victims, these factors demonstrate that DHS was not and should not have been required to call B.C. to testify. Furthermore, it is clear from the record that A.B. was afforded the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses but waived his right by failing to present their testimony. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has summarized the practical implications of the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses in the non-criminal context. Farmer v. Everett, 8 Ark.App. 23, 648 S.W.2d 513 (1983). First, a party must know or have an opportunity to know what evidence is being considered. Id. at 28, 648 S.W.2d at 516. This is based on the United States Supreme Court's holding that, where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the evidence used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. Greene, 360 U.S. at 496, 79 S.Ct. 1400. Second, when hearsay evidence has been submitted to the fact-finding body, a party must have the right of a rehearing for the purpose of subpoenaing and cross-examining adverse witnesses. Farmer, 8 Ark.App. at 29, 648 S.W.2d at 516. Our court of appeals has also recognized that the right to cross-examine may be waived by failure to exercise it. A petitioner cannot successfully argue that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine when it is clear that he was afforded such an opportunity but declined to exercise it. Palazzolo v. Nelms Chevrolet, 46 Ark.App. 130, 135, 877 S.W.2d 938, 941 (1994). As previously noted, the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act provides for the issuance of subpoenas by DHS at the request of the alleged offender. Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-513. It appears from the record that A.B. did in fact subpoena B.C., but he failed to obtain his testimony during the administrative hearing. Thus, A.B. waived the right to confront and cross-examine his accuser. The record suggests that A.B. chose not to call B.C. and other adverse witnesses because he was under the impression that DHS was required to do so in order to meet its burden of proof. As stated earlier, this assertion is not supported by authority. Because A.B. was given the opportunity to subpoena and call adverse witnesses but failed to do so, he cannot now successfully argue that his due-process rights were violated.