Opinion ID: 2321987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Superior Court Abused Its Discretion By Refusing to Conduct an In Camera Review of the Victims' Therapy Records.

Text: That brings us to the final issue, which is whether the trial judge erred by denying Burns' request to conduct an in camera review of the victims' therapy records. Before trial, Burns moved under Superior Court Criminal Rule 17 [28] to compel production of Tina and Sara Ames' therapy records. The Superior Court deferred argument on that motion until after the beginning of trial. Burns argued that the therapist's notes (excluding any diagnosis and any medical or counseling records not related to this case) were necessary for impeachment purposes because of alleged inconsistencies between the victims' trial testimony and their CAC interviews. Burns asked the Superior Court to conduct an in camera review of the victims' therapy records to determine whether disclosure of those records was necessary to protect his Sixth Amendment Confrontation right. The Superior Court denied that request, stating: First, I think that based on the representations that have been made thus far, you're essentially asking the Court to go on a fishing expedition. And as far as I can see, the possibility there might be some contradiction is mere speculation. This is not a case where there is evidence that the victim has recanted, expressed doubt about the identification of the perpetrator, or there's any indication that either victim suffers from a mental condition that would affect their ability to recall and relate events of what occurred. The [c]ourt, under case law, is required to balance the privilege versus the right to confrontation. And I think that in this case the showing that has been made does not meet a threshold that would justify disregarding the privilege between a patient and the therapist allowed under the law. Secondly, this privilege under the law does not appear to be different in its equivalence to the other privileges. If this were an adult sex case where the victim had talked with her husband and related the events that happened, even if he had made notes for potential civil litigation, I don't think that the Court would disregard that privilege. If the victim had consulted with her priest or clergy and had shared information that was relating to this event, I don't think that we would disregard that privilege. And if she spoke to an attorney she had hired to pursue civil litigation, I don't think that we would disregard that privilege. There is nothing in the law that changes the equivalence that this privilege between therapist and patient should be afforded, excepting the case law which requires the court to balance, as I said. Having made that balance, I find that there is an insufficient showing to overrule the privilege and to intrude into that relationship at this juncture. On appeal, Burns argues that he made the showing required under State v. Block [29] and State v. Wood [30] for the issuance of a subpoena, returnable to the court, for any factual information in the victims' therapy records. [31] Burns claims that having made the requisite showing, he was entitled to an in camera review of those records, followed by a Superior Court determination of whether those records should be disclosed to him, and that the denial of an in camera review was an abuse of discretion. The State responds that the trial court properly balanced the victims' interest in maintaining their privilege against Burns' Confrontation Clause rights, and properly determined that neither an in camera review nor disclosure of the victims' therapy records was required. After this case was argued before a panel of this Court, we requested, and the parties submitted, supplemental briefs addressing the implications of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie . [32] Burns claims that Ritchie is on point and compels the conclusion that the Superior Court abused its discretion by not granting in camera review. Burns suggests that other state courts have applied the Ritchie framework in similar circumstances, and required the disclosure of privileged records to the trial court for in camera review. The State responds that (1) Ritchie is distinguishable because the subpoenaed records in that case were in the possession of a state agency, and not (as here) in the possession of a private party; and (2) Burns failed to make the requisite showing of materiality. Two issues are presented. First, is the Ritchie framework applicable where the privileged information is held by a private organization? Second, what showing must a defendant make to establish entitlement to an in camera review of records, and did Burns make such a showing? For the reasons that follow, we hold that Ritchie applies and that Burns was entitled to an in camera review.
We review the Superior Court's denial of Burns' request for a Rule 17 subpoena for abuse of discretion. [33] Communications between a patient and therapist are privileged under D.R.E. 503(a). [34] That privilege is not an absolute bar to the disclosure of a witness' communication with her therapist, however. Where, as here, the privilege is invoked to bar discovery of potentially relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding, the trial court must balance the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights against the witness' privilege. [35] In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , [36] the United States Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of a father who had committed various sexual offenses against his daughter. After Ritchie was charged, the matter was referred to Children and Youth Services (CYS), a state agency. [37] During pretrial discovery, Ritchie served CYS with a subpoena seeking the disclosure of records relating to the charges against him. CYS refused to comply, claiming the records were privileged. [38] The trial judge denied Ritchie's request to compel CYS to produce those records, and declined to review them in camera. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that by denying Ritchie access to the CYS records, the trial court violated his Confrontation Clause rights. [39] The United States Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Applying a Due Process Clause analysis, that Court held that Ritchie was entitled to an in camera review of the CYS records, but not to a direct review by his attorney. [40] The State contends that Ritchie is inapposite because that case involved records held by a state agency. That is a distinction without a difference. Although Ritchie involved the disclosure of records in the possession of the State, nothing in the Ritchie Court's holding or analysis limits its application to records held by the State. Moreover, other jurisdictions have held that Ritchie applies to privately held records. [41] From the standpoint of the privilege holder it is immaterial whether the holder's therapy records are in the possession of a private party or the State. In either circumstance, the privilege holder has the identical interest in non-disclosure. Therefore, Ritchie applies here. Consequently, Burns, upon a proper showing, would have been entitled to a Superior Court in camera review of the victims' therapy records.
The final issue is what showing must Burns make to be entitled to an in camera review? In State v. Wood , the Superior Court held that Superior Court Criminal Rule 17 requires the defendant to: (1) identify precisely the records he or she is seeking, and assert a `compelling basis' for the request; (2) attempt to procure the consent of the victim for release of the records, before resorting to Rule 17; and (3) demonstrate to the court, with specificity, that the information he or she is seeking is relevant and material to his defense. [42] If such a showing is made, the court will then conduct an in camera review. [43] The State and Burns generally agree that the Wood framework should control, as do we. Burns claims, however, that he is required only to make a plausible showing that the information he is seeking is relevant and material, rather than having to establish relevance and materiality with specificity. Relying on a footnote in Ritchie, [44] Burns points out the impracticability and unlikelihood of a defendant ever establishing with specificity the relevance and materiality of unknown records. In response, the State argues that requiring anything less than a specific showing of relevance and materiality would result in the Superior Court having to conduct an in camera review in nearly all cases. That would strain court resources and increase the reluctance of sexual assault victims to seek counseling, for fear that their therapy records will be routinely disclosed. We conclude that a defendant need only make a plausible showing that the records sought are material and relevant. Otherwise, the defendant would find it impossible in most cases to establish materiality and relevance with specificity. It does not follow that every defendant will automatically be entitled to an in camera review. Defendants must still establish specifically what kinds or categories of records they are seeking, and must articulate a compelling basis for the request. The Superior Court must also be satisfied that the defendant is not embarking on a fishing expedition [45] into the witness' medical or psychological history. Moreover, the court may, where necessary, sanction defendants who abuse the Rule 17 process. We conclude that Burns has established his entitlement to an in camera review of the factual information in Tina and Sara Ames' therapy records relating to the charges against him. Because Burns sought only the factual information contained in those therapy records, his request was sufficiently precise and narrow. He also has established a compelling justification that that information was needed for impeachment purposes. The crimes with which he was charged had occurred years before, there was no physical evidence, the victims had made arguably inconsistent factual statements, and as in most child molestation cases where there is no physical evidence, the case would turn largely on the jury's determination of credibility. Burns sought the victims' consent before filing his Rule 17 motion to compel. Although Burns did not specifically show any material inconsistent statements by the victims, he did articulate concerns that established a plausible showing that the records sought were relevant and material, namely, that: (i) the girls had prepared detailed notes of their alleged abuse and destroyed those notes after their CAC interviews, and (ii) the girls presumably had discussed their interviews at length with their therapist. Those facts plausibly show that if there were factual inconsistencies in the girls' accounts, those inconsistencies could be discerned only from an in camera review of the factual information contained in the girls' therapy records. Because we find that Burns was entitled to an in camera review of the factual information in the victims' therapy records, we conclude that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying that request. We therefore remand this case to the Superior Court. On remand that court must decide what remedy Burns is entitled to. Burns claims that on remand he is entitled to a new trial. The current record, however, does not enable us to decide that issue. Ritchie does afford us guidance. There, the United States Supreme Court remanded Ritchie's case to the trial court to conduct an in camera review: [46] ... to determine whether [the records in question] contain[] information that probably would have changed the outcome of his trial. If it does, he must be given a new trial. If the records maintained by CYS contain no such information, or if the nondisclosure was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the lower court will be free to reinstate the prior conviction. [47] Ritchie requires a new trial only if information in the victim's therapy records would have changed the outcome of the trial. On remand, the Superior Court shall conduct an in camera review, and determine whether the information in the victims' therapy records would probably have changed the outcome of Burns' trial. If the Superior Court so finds, then it shall vacate the convictions and order a new trial. If, however, the Superior Court finds that the information would not have changed the outcome, then the convictions shall stand. In either case, the Superior Court shall report its findings to this Court within sixty days of the date of this Opinion.