Court Opinion

ID: 9738054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:41:39.010703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:03.444285
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court: Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Rock Island County, the defendant, Leslie Foggy, was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault and unlawful restraint. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to concurrent 30-year and 3-year terms of imprisonment for those offenses. The appellate court affirmed the judgment (149 Ill. App. 3d 599), and we allowed the defendant’s petition for leave to appeal (107 Ill. 2d R. 315(a)). The defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt, and that evidence may be summarized briefly. The offenses in question occurred in Rock Island on July 18, 1985. The complaining witness, a 26-year-old woman, was abducted from in front of her home around three o’clock that morning by the defendant, who forced her into a car and drove off. The defendant told the victim that he had a gun, and he compelled her to perform oral sex. The defendant eventually drove to a park in the area, where he raped the victim. The defendant later released her near a convenience store, and she told the sales clerk what had happened. The victim was then taken to a local hospital. There, she was shown a photographic array by police, and she identified the defendant as her attacker. The defendant was arrested at his home following the identification. He testified at trial, and he said that the sexual acts were consensual and that afterwards the victim became upset when he refused to give her money. The sole issue raised by the defendant in this appeal concerns the constitutionality of the statutory privilege for communications made to rape crisis counselors. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 8 — 802.1.) The Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault has filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of the provision. Section 8 — 802.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in its entirety: “(a) Purpose. This Section is intended to protect victims of rape from public disclosure of statements they make in confidence to counselors of organizations established to help them. On or after July 1, 1984, ‘rape’ means an act of forced sexual penetration or sexual conduct, as defined in Section 12 — 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as amended, including acts prohibited under Sections 12 — 13 through 12 — 16 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as amended. Because of the fear and stigma that often results from those crimes, many victims hesitate to seek help even where it is available at no cost to them. As a result they not only fail to receive needed medical care and emergency counseling, but may lack the psychological support necessary to report the crime and aid police in preventing future crimes. (b) Definitions. As used in this Act: (1) ‘Rape crisis organization’ means any organization or association the major purpose of which is providing information, counseling, and psychological support to victims of any or all of the crimes of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, sexual relations between siblings, criminal sexual abuse and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. (2) ‘Rape crisis counselor’ means a person who is employed in any organization or association defined as a rape crisis organization under this Section, who is a psychologist, social worker or a volunteer who has undergone 40 hours of training and is under the control of a direct services supervisor of a rape crisis organization. (3) ‘Confidential communication’ means any communication between an alleged victim of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, sexual relations between siblings, criminal sexual abuse and aggravated criminal sexual abuse or an attempt to commit any such offense and a rape crisis counselor in the course of providing information, counseling and advocacy. The term includes all records kept by the counselor or by the organization in the course of providing services to an alleged victim concerning the alleged victim and the services provided. (c) Confidentiality. No rape crisis counselor shall disclose any confidential communication or be examined as a witness in any civil or criminal proceeding as to any confidential communication without the consent of the victim. (d) Any rape crisis counselor who knowingly discloses any confidential communication in violation of this Act commits a Class C misdemeanor.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 8-802.1. In the aftermath of the assault, the victim sought and obtained counseling from the Quad City Rape/Sexual Assault Counseling Program. Before trial, the defendant issued a subpoena duces tecum on that organization seeking information regarding the complaining witness. Motions to quash were filed by the State and by Joni Dittmer, who was the rape crisis counselor assisting the victim. They contended that the victim’s communications with Dittmer were absolutely privileged under section 8 — 802.1 and therefore could not be disclosed without the victim’s consent, which she had not given. A copy of the subpoena does not appear in the record in this case; according to the circuit judge’s order, the defendant sought production of “ ‘all records, reports, notes, memoranda, statements, oral, recorded, or written, and any and all other documents concerning the alleged assault upon the witness.’ ” A hearing was conducted on the matter, and at that time counsel narrowed the scope of his request for information, indicating that he was seeking information that could be used for impeachment purposes. At the hearing, the State presented testimony from Berlinda Tyler-Jami-son, the program director, and from Joni Dittmer, the counselor in this case, regarding the operation and services of the Quad City Counseling Program. In her testimony, Joni Dittmer explained that she had told the victim that the counseling services were free and confidential. Dittmer said that part of her assistance involved what she termed legal advocacy, which, she explained, meant that she helped the victim keep track of the legal proceedings in the case and would attend court sessions with her. The circuit judge quashed the subpoena, ruling that the communications between Dittmer and the victim were protected from disclosure by the statutory privilege and that the statute was constitutional. Specifically, the circuit judge found that the Quad City Counseling Program was a rape crisis organization within the meaning of section 8 — 802.1(b)(1), that Dittmer was a rape crisis counselor within the meaning of section 8 — 802.1(b)(2), and that Dittmer and the victim had had six separate conversations and that each one was a confidential communication within the meaning of section 8 — 802.1(b)(3). The court also found that at no time had the victim consented to Dittmer’s disclosure of any of those communications. The circuit judge also rejected the defendant’s argument that the statute was unconstitutional. The judge noted that the victim in this case would be testifying in court and therefore subject to cross-examination. For those reasons, the court did not believe that the communications at issue here represented “a significant or irreplaceable means of impeaching her as a government witness.” The judge concluded that there was no substantial conflict in this case between the statutory privilege and the defendant’s right to conduct a defense to the charges against him. The circuit judge therefore quashed the subpoena. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting the defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of section 8 — 802.1. The defendant renews here his argument that the privilege accorded by section 8 — 802.1 to communications between sexual assault victims and counselors violates his Federal constitutional rights to due process and to confront the witnesses against him. (U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Pointer v. Texas (1965), 380 U.S. 400, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923, 85 S. Ct. 1065; see also Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §8; People v. Tennant (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 401, 408 (the Federal and State confrontation clauses “are meant to protect the same interest”).) The defendant asks for an in camera inspection of the records of the Quad City Counseling Program concerning the victim, with disclosure to the defense of her statements recounting the occurrence. -In support of his argument, the defendant cites the decisions of other courts that have refused to enforce, or have refused to recognize, an absolute privilege for communications made by sexual assault victims to counselors. In addition to applying their own precedents concerning privileges, those courts have relied on Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 94 S. Ct. 1105, and Washington v. Texas (1967), 388 U.S. 14, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019, 87 S. Ct. 1920, which found constitutional violations in State laws excluding certain forms of evidence from trial, and on United States v. Nixon (1974), 418 U.S. 683, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039, 94 S. Ct. 3090, which rejected a broad claim of executive privilege in the face of an articulated need for information. (See In re Robert H. (1986), 199 Conn. 693, 509 A.2d 475; Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives (R.I. 1983), 469 A.2d 1161; see also Matter of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape (1981), 494 Pa. 15, 428 A.2d 126 (refusing to recognize a common law privilege for communications made to rape counselors; the legislature has since enacted a statute providing an unqualified privilege (see 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5945.1 (1982)).) A contrary result has been reached by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that an in camera inspection of a sexual assault victim’s counseling records was barred by that State’s psychologist/patient privilege. People v. District Court (Colo. 1986), 719 P.2d 722. In Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 94 S. Ct. 1105, the Court found a violation of the defendant’s confrontation right in a prohibition on certain impeachment. Before trial in that case, the prosecution requested a protective order to preclude defense counsel from cross-examining one of the State’s principal witnesses regarding his juvenile record. Defense counsel argued that the information would be relevant to show possible bias on the witness’ part in assisting the police in the matter. The trial judge granted the protective order, relying on State provisions that generally precluded use of juvenile records in judicial proceedings. At trial, defense counsel asked the witness whether he was biased in the State’s favor but, consistent with the trial judge’s ruling, did not make any inquiry concerning the witness’ juvenile record. The United States Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction. The Court did not believe that the cross-examination of the witness had been adequate, for although defense counsel had been able to ask the witness whether he was biased, counsel had not been able to explore the possible sources of bias. Moreover, the Court did not believe that the State’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of juvenile records warranted their broad exclusion in that case. The Court concluded that “[t]he State’s policy interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offender’s record cannot require yielding of so vital a constitutional right as the effective cross-examination for bias of a defense witness.” (Davis, 415 U.S. at 320, 39 L. Ed. 2d at 356, 94 S. Ct. at 1112.) The Court remanded the cause for further proceedings. Discussing Davis, one commentator has noted: “In the first instance, it is probable that the defendant’s ability to challenge claims of privilege as impairing his 'right to present a defense’ will to some extent be dependent upon the criticality to that defense of the matter protected by the privilege. In Davis, the privileged matter in effect represented a significant and irreplaceable means of impeaching the chief prosecution witness. By contrast, where the privileged matter desired is of significantly lesser probative force or simply cumulative, its denial to the defendant has been held not to violate the constitutional guarantees.” (McCormick, Evidence §74.2, at 179 (3d ed. 1984).) In quashing the subpoena, the circuit judge concluded that the material requested by the defendant in this case did not represent critical or irreplaceable information, citing the quoted passage. A similar question was considered recently in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987), 480 U.S. 39, 94 L. Ed. 2d 40, 107 S. Ct. 989, which is cited by both the State and the defendant in support of their arguments here. In that case, which involved a confidentiality statute, a plurality of the Court rejected a confrontation clause argument like that made by the defendant in this case. The Court held that an in camera inspection of certain records was required, however. The defendant in Ritchie was charged with committing a number of sexual offenses against his 13-year-old daughter. Before trial, Ritchie subpoenaed the records of a State agency, Children and Youth Services (CYS), seeking information that had been developed in his daughter’s case; CYS investigated allegations of mistreatment and neglect of children, and Ritchie’s daughter had been referred to the agency by police. CYS claimed a statutory privilege in the records and refused to disclose them. The trial judge agreed with the agency and denied disclosure; Ritchie’s case then went to trial, and he was convicted of the charges. The United States Supreme Court considered Ritchie’s claim under both the confrontation and compulsory process clauses. Ritchie argued that nondisclosure of the State agency’s file interfered with his confrontation right because the files might have contained information, such as inconsistent statements, that would have been useful in cross-examining the complaining witness. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had agreed with Ritchie, relying in part on Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 94 S. Ct. 1105. The plurality in Ritchie characterized confrontation as essentially a trial right and believed that it would be satisfied by the defendant’s physically facing the witnesses against him and by counsel’s cross-examination of them. The plurality opinion said: “If we were to accept this broad interpretation of Davis, the effect would be to transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally-compelled rule of pretrial discovery. Nothing in the case law supports such a view. The opinions of this Court show that the right of confrontation is a trial right designed to prevent improper restriction on the types of questions that defense counsel may ask during . cross-examination. [Citations.] The ability to question adverse witnesses, however, does not include the power to require the pretrial disclosure of any and all information that might be useful in contradicting unfavorable testimony.” (Emphasis in original.) (Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 52-53, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 54,107 S. Ct. at 999.) The plurality concluded that “[bjecause defense counsel was able to cross-examine all of the trial witnesses fully,” the failure to disclose the agency’s records did not violate Ritchie’s confrontation right. 480 U.S. at 54, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 55-56, 107 S. Ct. at 1000. In Ritchie the Supreme Court also considered the defendant’s argument that nondisclosure of the agency’s file violated his sixth amendment guarantee of compulsory process. Analyzing that question in terms of due process, the Court concluded that, under the Pennsylvania statute at issue in that case, the defendant was entitled to have the trial judge conduct an in camera inspection of the records at issue. In Ritchie’s case, neither the prosecution nor the defense had seen the information, and the trial judge had not reviewed the entire file. Because the privilege was not absolute, the Court rejected the State’s argument that the statutory privilege would preclude an examination of the agency’s records in the case. Citing the Pennsylvania statute that provides an absolute privilege for communications between sexual assault victims and their counselors, the Court noted that it was expressing “no opinion on whether the result in this case would have been different if the statute had protected the CYS files from disclosure to anyone, including law-enforcement and judicial personnel.” (Emphasis in original.) (Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57 & n.14, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 57 & n.14, 107 S. Ct. at 1002 & n.14.) Rather, the statutory privilege at issue was not absolute, and one exception permitted CYS to “disclose the reports to a ‘court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to a court order.’ ” (Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 44, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 49, 107 S. Ct. at 995.) In light of that exception, the Supreme Court said: “Given that the Pennsylvania legislature contemplated some use of CYS records in judicial proceedings, we cannot conclude that the statute prevents all disclosure in criminal prosecutions. In the absence of any apparent state policy to the contrary, we therefore have no reason to believe that relevant information would not be disclosed when a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the information is material to the defense of the accused.” (Emphasis in original.) (Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 58, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 58, 107 S. Gt. at 1002.) The Court did not believe, however, that defense counsel was entitled to review the file himself so that he could argue for the relevance of particular information. Rather, the Court held that an in camera inspection of the file by the trial judge would be sufficient. Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 60, 94 L. Ed. 2d at 59, 107 S. Ct. at 1003. The privilege contained in section 8 — 802.1 is unqualified, and we are therefore met with an issue unresolved by Ritchie: whether an absolute privilege must yield to a criminal defendant’s pretrial discovery request for otherwise privileged information that may provide material for use in cross-examining witnesses. Again, we note that the defendant here was requesting only an in camera inspection of the material, with disclosure limited to communications recounting the commission of the offenses. The defendant’s request was merely general, however, and was not supported by any allegations that material useful to the defense of this case was likely to be found in the files of the Quad City Counseling Program. From the following analysis of the statutory privilege, we conclude that the defendant’s suggested procedure was not constitutionally required in this case. The legislature’s intent in section 8 — 802.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to protect the confidentiality of communications between sexual assault counselors and victims is clear. The stated purpose of the statute is as follows: “This Section is intended to protect victims of rape from public disclosure of statements they make in confidence to counselors of organizations established to help them. *** Because of the fear and stigma that often results from those crimes, many victims hesitate to seek help even where it is available at no cost to them. As a result they not only fail to receive needed medical care and emergency counseling, but may lack the psychological support necessary to report the crime and aid police in preventing future - crimes.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 8 — 802.1(a).) Moreover, as the appellate court noted in this case, the legislature originally allowed only a qualified privilege for communications between sexual assault counselors and victims but later decided to strengthen the privilege and make it absolute. (149 Ill. App. 3d 599, 601-03.) The predecessor statute expressly provided for an in camera inspection of those records, in the manner -urged by the defendant here. (See Ill. Rev. Stat., 1982 Supp., ch. 110, par. 8 — 802.1(c).) The legislature later eliminated that provision, replacing it with a broader statement of confidentiality and adding the penalty provision found in section 8 — 802.1(d), which makes an unauthorized disclosure a class C misdemeanor. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, pars. 8 — 802.1(c), (d).) With these amendments, the statute thus became one of the type left unexplored in Ritchie. We also find significant the contention of amicus that the role of rape crisis counselors is not to investigate the occurrence. Rather, the primary purpose of the counseling is to help the victim understand and resolve her feelings about the event. Thus, according to the amicus, an in camera inspection of counseling records would not likely result in the disclosure of any material useful to an accused. It is important to note that in this case the defendant’s request for an in camera inspection of the counseling records was merely general; he did not allege that information may exist in the counseling files that would be subject to disclosure. Moreover, the defendant had access to the array of unprivileged statements made by the complaining witness to other persons following the commission of the offenses, including the nearly contemporaneous statements made by the victim to the store clerk, and also had available the victim’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. Because of the strong policy of confidentiality expressed in section 8 — 802.1 and the absence of any indication by the defendant that the victim’s communications with the counselor would provide a source of impeachment, we do not believe that the privilege was required to be breached in this case. “The vague assertion that the victim may have made statements to her therapist that might possibly differ from the victim’s anticipated trial testimony does not provide a sufficient basis to justify ignoring the victim’s right to rely upon her statutory privilege.” (People v. District Court (Colo. 1986), 719 P.2d 722, 726; see also Commonwealth v. Two Juveniles (1986), 397 Mass. 261, 269, 491 N.E.2d 234, 239 (before in camera inspection of otherwise privileged sexual assault counseling records may be ordered, accused “must show a legitimate need for access to the communications”).) Under the circumstances present here, to abrogate the privilege in this case would require its abrogation in every case, and that we decline to do. We note that under the theory proposed by the dissent, in every case a trial judge could become privy to all counseling records of a sexual assault victim, regardless of what was discussed in the counseling sessions and in the absence of any demonstrated need that would justify such an intrusion. The victim in this case was told that the services of the Quad City Counseling Program were both free and confidential, but under the dissent’s view that advice would no longer be appropriate — a special admonition would become necessary, to accommodate the very real possibility that a judge later would be examining the records of the counseling sessions. This, we believe, would seriously undermine the valuable, beneficial services of those programs that are within the protection of the statute. In sum, section 8 — 802.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure evinces a strong public policy in favor of the confidentiality of communications between sexual assault victims and counselors. Unlike the defendant in Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 94 S. Ct. 1105, who knew of specific information that could show bias or motive to fabricate on the part of the prosecution witness, and who had no other means of achieving that end, the defendant here has offered no reason to believe that the victim’s counseling records would provide a source of impeaching material unavailable from other sources. We conclude that the defendant was not denied due process, nor was his confrontation right violated, by the trial judge’s refusal in this case to conduct an in camera inspection of the victim’s counseling records. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.