Court Opinion

ID: 9743714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:41:16.522984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:43.012416
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCOTT, dissenting: Henry Nellums, an avid collector and seller of pornographical material, commenced a weekly incestuous relationship with his adoptive daughter, Darlene Nellums, when she was eight years old. He continued this relationship until Darlene was 14 years of age. Darlene effectively ended Nellums’ incestuous conduct on January 3, 1981, when she shot and killed him. Darlene was prosecuted as a juvenile, made a ward of the court and placed on probation. Judy Nellums, natural mother of Darlene, was aware of her daughter’s plans to kill her husband, Henry Nellums, and gave her daughter permission to do so shortly before the act was committed. Judy was never prosecuted. The defendant, Melanie K. Skiles, was 18 when the crime was committed, was aware of Darlene’s intentions, and at Darlene’s request stood behind her when the fatal shot was fired. Melanie, as stated in the majority opinion, was tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and on an accountability theory of voluntary manslaughter. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years’ imprisonment on each conviction. Was the foregoing scenario of events legal? Yes, but fair? No! This observation as to the legality of the defendant Skiles’ conviction is premised upon the assumption that the defendant received a fair trial, which the majority has concluded she received. I disagree with such a conclusion. Reversible error was committed when the State over defendant’s objection was permitted to introduce evidence of the defendant’s willingness to submit to a polygraph examination regarding two narrative statements which she had made. The defendant filed a motion in limine requesting the trial court to exclude all testimony regarding a polygraph examination and this motion was allowed. The defendant during trial further requested that all references as to her willingness to take a polygraph examination be deleted from recorded and transcribed narratives which she had made and which the State was attempting to introduce into evidence. This motion was opposed by the State with the argument that the expressions of such willingness to take a lie detector test showed that the defendant’s statements were true. The jurors heard two recorded narratives given by the defendant and were further given transcripts of the narratives so that the same could be read as the tape was being played. The jury heard the narrative of the defendant given to the law enforcement officials at 4:46 p.m. on January 5, 1981, a portion of which is as follows: “S.A. [Special Agent]: Okay, Melanie, as you know, this is the third statement we have taken from you. And each time the statement has been different. M.S.: Yes. * * * M.s.: *** What I am telling you now is the honest to God’s truth and I would take a polygraph test right now and swear to it. And I know it would come out positive.” At 11:59 p.m. on the same date the defendant gave a second narrative which was also heard by the jury and a portion of which is as follows: “H.B. [initials of investigator]: Have we promised you anything? M.S.: No. H.B.: Okay, would you be willing to take a polygraph to this, to this statement? M.S.: Yes, yes, I would.” Almost seven hours later the defendant gave another narrative to a special agent Brignadello, who prefaced the statement with the following remarks: “H.B.: Melanie, I understand that at this point, you have some things that you would like to tell us that were asked before in a previous statement and were not quite accurate. At this point you would like to tell the complete truth, is that correct? M.S.: Yes.” The foregoing narratives listened to and read by the jurors were subject to strenuous objections by counsel for the defendant, however, these objections were overruled. It was the State’s position that the objected-to evidence (defendant’s declarations of a willingness to take a polygraph examination) bolstered the credibility of her narratives. The State’s position is well taken; however, the State was trodding on forbidden ground. The inference from such evidence was that the defendant’s initial stories were false and that the final statement introduced by the State was true and proven to be true by a polygraph examination. Our supreme court, referring to evidence relating to a polygraph examination, has stated, “No other form of evidence is as likely to be considered as completely determinative of guilt or innocence as a polygraph examination.” (People v. Baynes (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 225, 244, 430 N.E.2d 1070, 1079.) In Baynes admission of polygraph evidence was stipulated to by the parties, yet our supreme court held that the use of such evidence rose to the level of plain error and reversed the defendant’s conviction even though it was recognized that the evidence against the defendant was not close. Our supreme court recently reversed a defendant’s conviction where the trial judge, following a guilty verdict, mentioned the possibility of giving the defendant a polygraph examination prior to the time the judge ruled on a motion for new trial, even though the judge stated that he did not want to know the result of the examination or even if one was conducted. (See People v. Yarbrough (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 421, 444 N.E.2d 493.) In Yarbrough the prosecutor during hearing on motion for new trial did refer to “certain investigative procedures” as having been “performed subsequent to the trial.” Our supreme court in reversing defendant’s conviction reasoned that the judge could have inferred that the defendant had taken the examination and that the results were not beneficial to him. The same reasoning is applicable in the case before us in that it can be assumed that the jury concluded that the defendant had taken a lie detector test and the results were not beneficial to her. The precise question presented in this case, to-wit, evidence of a defendant’s willingness to take a lie detector test, has not been precisely addressed in our State; however, other jurisdictions have been confronted with the issue and have held that such evidence constitutes reversible error because it lacks probative value and it is of a self-serving nature. See State v. Carnegie (1969), 158 Conn. 264, 259 A.2d 628, cert. denied (1969), 396 U.S. 992, 24 L. Ed. 2d 455, 90 S. Ct. 488; People v. Rocha (1981), 110 Mich. App. 1, 312 N.W.2d 657; and precisely on all fours with the instant case is State v. Britson (1981), 130 Ariz. 380, 636 P.2d 628. The majority opinion disposes of the issues regarding the admission of evidence relating to defendant’s willingness to take a polygraph examination by noting that the defendant’s statements to that effect were spontaneous. I quarrel not with the fact that the defendant made the statements during a prolonged investigation by law enforcement officials. Such statements were contained in the narratives both heard and read by the jury. The State could well have introduced into evidence the narratives minus the defendant’s remarks pertaining to her willingness to take a polygraph examination. The State in attempting to “gild the lily” obtained the opposite result in that reversible error was committed which mandates a new trial. I also differ with that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that no error was committed by the trial court when it ruled that the mental health records of Darlene Nellums, the principal actor, were privileged under the provisions of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 91V2, par. 801 et seq.). An assistant to the Attorney General of our State prosecuted this case and presented oral arguments to this court on appeal. I agree with the majority opinion in that this court was informed by the State during oral argument that the mental health report in dispute was given to counsel for the defendant, that it was contained in the record on appeal and hence we could examine it and we would find it irrelevant. I further agree with the observation of the majority that such statement was not true. The defense counsel despite repeated requests never received such a report and the same is not part of the record. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the failure to produce the material in the possession of the Department of Mental Health was of no consequence. The principal actor, Darlene Nellums, who killed her father, agreed to undergo psychiatric treatment as a condition of her probation, and such treatment was ordered by the court. Information obtained from Darlene contained in reports prepared by the Illinois State Psychiatric Institute was filed with the juvenile court and the State’s Attorney. Dr. Lani of the Institute testified as to confidential statements Darlene had made at the juvenile dispositional hearing, a hearing which counsel for the defendant was not permitted to attend. Whether there was material in the psychiatric reports which would have been beneficial to the defendant’s defense was not known to counsel for the defendant, nor to this court. Darlene did not testify at the trial, nor were her whereabouts disclosed to the defendant. Whether a disclosure would have been beneficial to the defendant is a determination that should have been made by counsel for the defendant. The statutory psychiatrist-patient privilege does not apply to a psychiatric examination made pursuant to a court order. People v. English (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 301, 201 N.E.2d 455; People v. Lowe (1969), 109 Ill. App. 2d 236, 248 N.E.2d 530. Presumably the patient in psychotherapeutic treatment reveals the most private and secret aspects of his mind and soul. To casually allow public disclosure of such would desecrate any notion of an individual’s right to privacy. Confidentiality encourages candor from the patient which is necessary for proper treatment; however, in the instant case we have a situation where there must be a determination of which is to be given the most weight, the right of confidentiality or the rights guaranteed to an accused by the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution and the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. As the result of confidential information concerning Darlene having been provided to third parties, it may well be that such acts constituted a waiver of the privilege of confidentiality. (People v. Newbury (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 228, 290 N.E.2d 592; People v. Givans (1967), 83 Ill. App. 2d 423, 228 N.E.2d 123.) However, a broader solution to the problem should be adopted. When a statutory evidentiary privilege directly conflicts with a defendant’s right of confrontation and due process, the statutory privilege must give way to the fundamental protections of our system of criminal justice. People v. Phipps (1981), 98 Ill. App. 3d 413, 424 N.E.2d 727; Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347, 94 S. Ct. 1105. It should also be noted that in this case the defendant by her attorney sought but did not receive the known address of Darlene Nellums. At one time the State was directed to supply the address. The State did not promptly comply with this request and ultimately, after being informed by third parties that Darlene did not wish to testify, the court entered an order denying the defendant’s request for the address. Counsel for defendant was denied the right to make his own determination as to whether Darlene did or did not want to testify and such denial was based upon hearsay statements. Whether Darlene did or did not want to testify is immaterial. Her address should have been produced. Her whereabouts could lead to other acquaintances or other people in contact with Darlene which could conceivably enable counsel for defendant to better investigate and prepare her defense. See People v. Bass (1980), 84 Ill. App. 3d 624, 405 N.E.2d 1182, and People v. Szabo (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 327, wherein there is contained an informative dissertation on the importance of compliance with discovery procedure. For the reasons set forth I believe that the conviction of the defendant should be reversed and a new trial should be ordered.