Court Opinion

ID: 9400779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 14:07:18.845098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.899805
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: JUNE 2, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

           Commonwealth of Kentucky
                    Court of Appeals
                     NO. 2022-CA-1007-MR

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                           APPELLANT

            APPEAL FROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE JOHN G. PRATHER, JR., JUDGE
                     ACTION NO. 22-CR-00012

FREDDIE J. CROMER                                   APPELLEE

AND

                     NO. 2022-CA-1048-MR

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                           APPELLANT

            APPEAL FROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT
v.           HONORABLE JOHN G. PRATHER, JR., JUDGE
                     ACTION NO. 22-CR-00012

FREDDIE J. CROMER                                   APPELLEE

AND

                     NO. 2022-CA-1049-MR

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                           APPELLANT
                  APPEAL FROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE JOHN G. PRATHER, JR., JUDGE
                           ACTION NO. 22-CR-00012

FREDDIE J. CROMER                                                      APPELLEE

                                OPINION
                        REVERSING AND REMANDING

                                  ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, GOODWINE, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: The Commonwealth of Kentucky (“Commonwealth”)

appeals an order of the Rockcastle Circuit Court for an in-camera review of the

victim’s mental health records. After careful review, we reverse and remand with

directions to enter an order denying Freddie Cromer’s (“Cromer”) motion

requesting the victim’s mental health records.

             According to the criminal complaint, on October 25, 2021, Cromer

had an altercation with the victim, his girlfriend. The victim claimed she

discovered Cromer was cheating on her, and he called her a liar. The victim

grabbed Cromer’s phone to look at his messages, and he began chasing her through

the house. Cromer then grabbed her from behind; punched her multiple times in

the face, head, and body; and threw her onto the floor. The victim grabbed Cromer

                                        -2-
by the crotch, and he fell on top of her, injuring her knee, and causing a broken leg

and torn ACL. After the incident, the victim sought an emergency protective order

(“EPO”) and domestic-violence assault charges.

                Initially, Cromer was charged with fourth-degree assault, but based on

the severity of the victim’s injuries, the charge was elevated. On January 28, 2022,

Cromer was indicted on second-degree assault.1

                Cromer filed multiple motions to obtain the victim’s mental health

records. First, on February 16, 2022, Cromer requested “the Commonwealth to

provide the mental health records of the complaining witness.” Record (“R.”) at

36. In support, he alleged: “(a) [the victim] has previously been hospitalized due

to mental illness; (b) her mental health goes to her credibility; [and] (c) [victim]’s

mental health records would be exculpatory evidence at the trial of this matter.”

Id. Second, on April 12, 2022, Cromer renewed his motion.

                Third, on June 29, 2022, Cromer filed a motion requesting

exculpatory evidence. Cromer requested, “Any and all mental health records of

the complaining witness. This would include any hospitalizations due to her

mental illness, and any psychologist, psychiatrist and counseling records and

disability records in connection with her mental health.” R. at 70. Cromer’s

request was based on the same rationale as his first motion.

1
    Kentucky Revised Statutes (“KRS”) 508.020 (Class C felony).

                                              -3-
               The Commonwealth responded objecting to the request. The

Commonwealth argued, in part, that Cromer’s assertions had not met his burden of

establishing a reasonable belief that the records in fact contained exculpatory

information.

               On July 8, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on the matter. The

circuit court determined it would order the victim’s mental health records to be

produced for an in-camera inspection if the providers objected to the defense

counsel’s subpoenas. The healthcare providers denied the records request, so the

circuit court issued three written orders for the records to be provided for an in-

camera review. On July 22, 2022, the circuit court ordered the Rockcastle Circuit

Clerk to “notify the trial court of any and all mental health/disability proceedings

filed against the victim,” which the Commonwealth appealed in No. 2022-CA-

1007. R. at 83. On July 27, 2022, the circuit court ordered The Ridge Behavioral

Health System to “immediately provide to the Court any and all mental health

records regarding the victim” which the Commonwealth appealed in No. 2022-CA-

1048. R. at 84. On August 8, 2022, the circuit court ordered Rockcastle Regional

Hospital to “immediately provide to the Court any and all mental health records

regarding the victim,” which the Commonwealth appealed in No. 2022-CA-1049.

R. at 91. The circuit court set an in-camera review for September 9, 2022, for all

                                          -4-
records. The Commonwealth filed this interlocutory appeal under KRS

22A.020(4).

              On appeal, the Commonwealth argues the circuit court abused its

discretion in ordering the production of the victim’s mental health records. “We

review a trial judge’s decision concerning discovery issues under an abuse of

discretion standard.” Hilton v. Commonwealth, 539 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Ky. 2018)

(quoting Brown v. Commonwealth, 416 S.W.3d 302, 308 (Ky. 2013)). “The test

for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary,

unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Id. at 7 (quoting

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575, 581 (Ky. 2000)).

              In Commonwealth v. Barroso, 122 S.W.3d 554 (Ky. 2003), the

Supreme Court of Kentucky set the requirements for determining whether a

witness’s mental health records contain exculpatory evidence and, thus, are

discoverable. The Supreme Court determined: “If the psychotherapy records of a

crucial prosecution witness contain evidence probative of the witness’s ability to

recall, comprehend, and accurately relate the subject matter of the testimony, the

defendant’s right to compulsory process must prevail over the witness’s

psychotherapist-patient privilege.” Id. at 563. Then, the Supreme Court set the

burden a defendant must prove for a circuit court to conduct an in camera review

of the records: “in camera review of a witness’s psychotherapy records is

                                         -5-
authorized only upon receipt of evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable belief

that the records contain exculpatory evidence.” Id. at 564. Stated differently, “the

proponent of the disclosure order bears the initial burden of identifying specific

records, or at least specific institutions or medical professionals in possession of

such records. The proponent must then establish a reasonable belief that such

records contain exculpatory information.” White v. Willett, 456 S.W.3d 810, 813

(Ky. 2015).

              Here, though Cromer identified specific institutions, he failed to

provide any evidence that the victim’s mental health records contained exculpatory

evidence. In filing his motion requesting the victim’s mental health records,

Cromer attached an affidavit stating:

              I have known [the victim] for more that [sic] 7-8 years. I
              know that she has mental health issues because I have
              picked her up at 2 mental health facilities. I am also
              aware that she is on disability for mental health concerns
              and she takes medication for those concerns.

R. at 72.

              At the hearing, Cromer’s counsel argued why the defense needed the

victim’s records, and Cromer testified:

              Defense: This case started out as assault 4th and then
              elevated to [felony assault]. . . . We had a preliminary
              hearing and . . . [the victim] basically always starts off
              and says she had a seven-year relationship with
              [Cromer]. So he knows very well her mental-health
              hospitalizations. I’m asking, judge, that you review

                                           -6-
those. You don’t have to give them to me right off but
review them. My concern is – and I filed one motion
already about the castle doctrine. This whole thing
arose in his home. Her snatching a cell phone from him.
I need to see her – and I believe she’s on mental
disability as we speak. I need to know, is she paranoid
schizophrenic? What is her diagnosis? And I do believe
that it goes to credibility.

...

 In this case that’s all there is, him versus her. That’s it.
That’s the whole case basically. And the events
happened within his home. I’ve got to have those records
in order to do my defense.

...

I’m just saying it goes to the heart of my defense. This
lady is established to have – and it wasn’t like [what the
Commonwealth] is saying, just going in and checking
[her mental health] – I believe, if I’m right, she was
commanded, like a mental-health warrant, to go in. Not
that she just went in on her own.

Judge: You mean to be evaluated.

Defense: Like a mental health, to see if she’s a danger to
herself or others. . . .

Judge: Whether she’s a danger to herself or others is not
really a question of credibility. But, her credibility can
be brought into [inaudible] if she has been treated for
something that relates to that. Okay, [Commonwealth]
what did you say?

Commonwealth: Judge, counsel is free to attack her
credibility. However, that doesn’t override the privileges
afforded somebody getting mental-health treatment, and
there is case law to show that is a severe hurdle to

                            -7-
             overcome. . . . I think the case law in the Commonwealth
             is pretty steady [on] that. In this situation, it is not one of
             those situations that overcomes that right to privacy and
             right to treatment . . . .

             Judge: I’m going to order that there be an in-camera
             review of the mental-health records. And I’m looking
             there only for things that would be exculpatory based
             upon [Cromer’s] statement that – and I’m going to ask
             him that, with permission from counsel.

             Defense: Go ahead.

             Judge: Do you believe that her mental health has
             involved questions of her truthfulness when she’s been
             treated in the past?

             Cromer: Yes, it does, and she gets very mean.

             Judge: Well mean doesn’t have anything to do with it.
             Truthfulness is what it is has to do with. And if I
             examine this and all it shows is that she gets very mean,
             I’m not going to let you have that.

             ...

             In this particular instance, and because they were
             together so long, he would at least be a person who
             observed her demeanor and truthfulness over that period
             of time. I find that to be sort of a special circumstance.
             I’m going to sustain it.

Video Record (“VR”) 7/8/22. 11:00:26-11:06:40.

             Cromer merely stated in his affidavit that the victim received mental

health treatment at two facilities. Cromer and counsel could not identify specific

date ranges of the victim’s treatment that would contain exculpatory information.

                                           -8-
Cromer also made a blanket request for mental health/disability proceedings

against the victim. During the hearing when the circuit court asked Cromer if the

victim’s mental health affected her truthfulness, he said yes and she’s mean. This

does not establish a reasonable belief that the victim’s mental health records

contain exculpatory evidence.

             Defense counsel’s argument during the hearing also shows that this is

a fishing expedition. Counsel stated Cromer believed the victim had received

mental health treatment, but he did not know if she had a specific diagnosis that

would impact her credibility.

             Based on defense counsel’s argument and scant evidence at best, the

circuit court entered three blanket orders with no specific date range for all of the

victim’s records from two institutions and all mental health/disability proceedings

filed against the victim. As in Willett, these blanket orders “epitomize the type of

court sanctioned fishing expedition that Barroso cautioned against. Those records

are nothing more than a shotgun blast of discovery authorizing an overly broad

invasion into [the victim’s] privacy.” Willett, 456 S.W.3d at 813.

             Additionally, the circuit court failed to correctly apply the second

prong of Barroso in assuming Cromer established a reasonable belief that the

victim’s mental health impacted her truthfulness simply because they were

together for a long time when Cromer presented no evidence to support his

                                          -9-
contention. Again, as in Willett, “[i]n contrast to the procedure outlined in

Barroso, the trial court in the present case failed to articulate evidence sufficient to

establish a reasonable belief that Appellant’s psychotherapy records contained

exculpatory evidence. The court made no findings whatsoever in” its orders. Id.

             Despite Cromer’s argument that he reasonably believes the victim’s

mental health records contain exculpatory evidence, he failed to articulate evidence

supporting his position to the circuit court. “A person’s credibility is not in

question merely because he or she is receiving treatment for a mental health

problem.” Barroso, 122 S.W.3d at 563 (quoting California v. Pack, 201

Cal.App.3d 679, 248 Cal.Rptr. 240, 244 (1988), overruled on other grounds by

California v. Hammon, 15 Cal.4th 1117, 938 P.2d 986 (1997)). As such, we hold

the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering an in-camera review of the

victim’s mental health records.

             For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the orders of the Rockcastle

Circuit Court and remand with directions to enter a new order denying Cromer’s

request for the victim’s mental health records from Rockcastle Regional Hospital,

the Ridge Behavioral Health System, and mental health/disability records from the

Rockcastle Circuit Court.

             ALL CONCUR.

                                          -10-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:            BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Daniel J. Cameron                James L. Cox
Attorney General of Kentucky     Mt. Vernon, Kentucky

Joseph A. Beckett
Assistant Attorney General
Frankfort, Kentucky

                               -11-