Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Hon Mary Shaw Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court ( 2020 )

2019-SC-000218-MR
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V. CASE NO. 2019-CA-000128-MR
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT NO. 17-CR-000564
HONORABLE MARY SHAW, JUDGE, APPELLEE
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
AND
CHARLES RUTLEDGE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VANMETER
REVERSING AND REMANDING
The Commonwealth of Kentucky appeals the Court of Appeals’ denial of
its petition for a writ of prohibition. The Commonwealth filed a writ petition
upon the trial court’s issuance of an order granting the defendant, Charles
Rutledge’s, request for an in camera review of the alleged victim’s (“victim”)
therapy records during January 2017. The Commonwealth argues on appeal
(1) that the trial court erred in granting Rutledge’s motion for in camera review,
and (2) that the trial court has no authority to order the Commonwealth to
provide it with the names of the victim’s therapy providers. Finding the
Commonwealth’s second claim meritorious, we reverse and issue a writ
1
quashing the trial court’s order as written and directing the trial court on
remand to follow our analysis, infra, on how to properly retrieve the relevant
information from the victim.
I. Factual and Procedural Background.
Rutledge was indicted on four counts of Incest, one count of Rape in the
First Degree, one count of Sodomy in the First Degree, one count of Criminal
Attempt Sodomy in the First Degree, one Count of Rape in the Second Degree,
one count of Sodomy in the Second Degree, two counts of Sexual Abuse in the
First Degree and one count of Possession of a Matter Portraying a Sexual
Performance by a Minor. Except for the latter charge, all the crimes were
allegedly committed against his step-daughter.
In November 2017, Rutledge filed a motion requesting that the trial court
conduct an in camera review of any therapy or mental health records of the
victim. The basis for Rutledge’s motion was that the victim made inconsistent
statements during a recorded police interview and a controlled call, and he
intended to cross-examine her at trial about those statements. In the police
interview, on January 17, the witness stated that she had started therapy the
week before and started “vomiting” everything up in therapy. On January 31,
in a controlled call with Rutledge, the witness stated that she had told her
family about the allegations on December 31, 2016. The trial court initially
denied Rutledge’s motion, but after hearing arguments granted the motion as
to only the records from the relevant time period—January 2017.
The trial court’s order noted the inconsistencies that led to its decision.
Here, the alleged victim referenced therapy during her January 17,
2017 police interview and during a “controlled call” with the
2
Defendant placed on January 31, 2017. During the interview, the
alleged victim stated it was during these therapy sessions that she
recalled some of the numerous alleged sexual interactions she had
as a child with the Defendant. She had been in therapy
approximately 10 days prior to the interview and expected to
remember more in the future. She also stated during the police
interview that therapy allowed her to remember more of the alleged
events, although she started 2017 wanting to “do something
about” the alleged abuse. The Defendant requests psychotherapy
records for treatment referenced during the interview and
controlled call (i.e. therapy sessions that started in early 2017
through the date of the controlled call) because they could inform
when the alleged victim could recall alleged abuse and how what
she recalls compares to the information shared during the
statement and controlled call.
The Commonwealth filed a motion to reconsider. The trial court heard
arguments on the motion to reconsider, but ultimately denied the
Commonwealth’s motion. The Commonwealth petitioned the Court of Appeals
for a writ of prohibition, which was denied. This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review.
“[T]he issuance of a writ is inherently discretionary. Even if the
requirements are met and error found, the grant of a writ remains within the
sole discretion of the Court.” Caldwell v. Chauvin, 464 S.W.3d 139, 145-46
(Ky. 2015) (citing Edwards v. Hickman, 237 S.W.3d 183, 189 (Ky. 2007)).
A writ of prohibition may be granted upon a showing that (1) the
lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its
jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an
intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about
to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there
exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great
injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not
granted.
Id. at 145 (quoting Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Ky. 2004)).
3
In Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004), we
summarized the proper standard of review for writ petitions depending upon
the class of writ and the ultimate decision of the Court of Appeals.
[T]he proper standard actually depends on the class, or category, of
writ case. De novo review will occur most often under the first
class of writ cases, i.e., where the lower court is alleged to be
acting outside its jurisdiction, because jurisdiction is generally
only a question of law. De novo review would also be applicable
under the few second class of cases where the alleged error invokes
the “certain special cases” exception or where the error involves a
question of law. But in most of the cases under the second class of
writ cases, i.e., where the lower court is acting within its
jurisdiction but in error, the court with which the petition for a
writ is filed only reaches the decision as to issuance of the writ
once it finds the existence of the “conditions precedent,” i.e., no
adequate remedy on appeal, and great and irreparable harm. If
[these] procedural prerequisites for a writ are satisfied, whether to
grant or deny a petition for a writ is within the court’s discretion.
But the requirement that the court must make a factual
finding of great and irreparable harm before exercising discretion
as to whether to grant the writ then requires a third standard of
review, i.e., clear error, in some cases. This is supported by the
fact that the petition for a writ is an original action in which the
court that hears the petition, in this case the Court of Appeals,
acts as a trial court. And findings of fact by a trial court are
reviewed for clear error. Therefore, if on appeal the error is alleged
to lie in the findings of fact, then the appellate court must review
the findings of fact for clear error before reviewing the decision to
grant or deny the petition.
Id. at 810 (citations and quotations omitted).
The Commonwealth asserts that its initial argument is proper as a writ of
the second class, and its second argument fits under the certain special cases
exception. Thus, we shall review each argument in turn.
III. Analysis.
The Commonwealth’s first argument is controlled by our decision in
Commonwealth v. Barroso, 122 S.W.3d 554 (Ky. 2003). In Barroso, we held
4
that “the Compulsory Process Clause affords a criminal defendant the right to
obtain and present exculpatory evidence, including impeachment evidence, in
the possession of a third party that would otherwise be subject to the
psychotherapist-patient privilege.” Id. at 561. When weighing the defendant’s
rights under the Compulsory Process Clause and the privilege rights of a
witness, this Court further held that “in camera review of a witness’s
psychotherapy records is authorized only upon receipt of evidence sufficient to
establish a reasonable belief that the records contain exculpatory evidence.”
Id. at 564. Thus, we review whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion
in holding that Rutledge provided the required “reasonable belief.”
Rutledge asked for therapy records dating back to 1999 in his original
motion which the trial court denied. The trial court granted Rutledge’s motion
for reconsideration, but only as to records between January 1, 2017, and
January 31, 2017, as these were the relevant times during which the victim’s
statements took place. In denying the Commonwealth’s writ petition, the Court
of Appeals held that “the records could inform when the prosecuting witness
could recall the alleged abuse and how what she recalls compares to the
information she provided in her statement to police and the controlled call.” In
Barroso, we held that “[i]f 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.” 122 S.W.3d at 563. Here, as found by the
trial court, the victim’s inconsistent statements regarding her recollection of
5
events satisfies the “reasonable belief” standard set forth in Barroso, and no
abuse of discretion occurred.
The Commonwealth next asserts that the trial court has no power to
compel it to retrieve the names of the victim’s therapy providers. It argues that
the trial court’s order (1) effectively forces the Commonwealth to be a part of
the defense’s investigation team, and (2) will force victims to waive privilege.
While we agree with the premise of the Commonwealth’s first argument, under
Barroso, an avenue must exist for the defense team to receive specific records
from a specific institution for an extremely limited time-period when the only
unavailable information is the name of the institution.
In Barroso, we addressed the privilege arguments advanced by the
Commonwealth. This Court held:
[T]he trial judge’s in. camera inspection of J.H.’s psychotherapy
records protected Appellee’s constitutional rights without
destroying J.H.’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of those
portions of the records (in this case the entirety of the records)
irrelevant to Appellee’s interests.
... As noted supra, a witness whose privileged information is
compelled by court order has not disclosed it voluntarily. Thus,
the privilege remains intact for purposes other than the criminal
proceeding in which it was compelled.
Id. at 564-65. We thus reject the Commonwealth’s second argument, since, as
noted in Barroso, a privilege is not waived if compelled by court order. 1 122
S.W.3d at 565.
1 If we elected to follow the Commonwealth’s approach we would essentially be
“allowing the State to rely on a witness’s testimony to convict a defendant of a crime,
yet denying the defendant even an in camera review of materials that may significantly
undermine that witness’s credibility!.] [This] is a process that is anything but “due”; it
6
However, we recognize the quandary that the Commonwealth would be
placed in if ordered to assist the defense by questioning its own witness. In
Barroso, since the medical providers were known, we did not address
procedural steps and remedies for when a witness’s medical provider is
unknown. Other states have addressed this issue.2
However, instead of directly following our sister states’ procedures, we
elect to carve out our own procedure in order to stay within Barroso’s
framework and best protect the rights of both the prosecuting witness and the
defendant. Going forward, when, as here, the specific time frame and relevant
information is known, but the medical provider is not, a defendant should file a
motion for healthcare records. The Commonwealth may object, as it did here,
and a Barroso hearing may take place. If the trial court determines that
is fundamentally unfair and creates too great a risk that an innocent defendant may
be convicted.” Clifford S. Fishman, Defense Access to A Prosecution Witness’s
Psychotherapy or Counseling Records, 86 Or. L. Rev. 1, 25 (2007).
2 Several of our sister state jurisdictions have protected both defendants and
witnesses by allowing in camera review if consent to waive privilege is obtained by the
witness but allowing the privilege to remain intact if consent is not received. These
states have determined that if the privilege is not waived for in camera review, the
witness is barred from testifying at trial. See, e.g., State v. Peeler, 857 A.2d 808, 841
(Conn. 2004) (further discussing the proper steps under the Esposito procedure); State
v. Esposito, 471 A.2d 949, 956 (Conn. 1984) (determining that witness has two
chances to invoke privilege—before and after in camera review—and if privilege is
invoked, testimony is stricken); People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557, 577 (Mich.
1994) (holding that “if the complainant will not waive her statutory privilege and allow
the in camera inspection after the defendant’s motion has been granted, suppression
of the complainant’s testimony is the appropriate sanction[]”); State v. Trammell, 435
N.W.2d 197, 201 (Neb. 1989) (adopting Connecticut’s approach); State v. Gonzales,
912 P.2d 297, 303 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (“we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s decision to prohibit Rachel from testifying as long as she refused to produce
the disputed records for in camera review[]”); State v. Shiffra, 499 N.W.2d 719, 724—25
(Wis. Ct. App. 1993) (“Under the circumstances, the only method of protecting Shiffra’s
right to a fair trial was to suppress Pamela’s testimony if she refused to disclose her
records[]”).
7
9
“evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable belief that the records contain
exculpatory evidence” has been presented, the Commonwealth may, but is not
required, to ask the witness for the names of his/her providers. If the witness
provides the names, the Commonwealth is to file the names of the providers
under seal with defense counsel having access. If the Commonwealth declines
to ask or the witness refuses to provide the names of the providers such that
the providers’ names remain unknown, the defendant can file a subpoena for
the witness to appear. The trial court should place the witness under oath and
explain to him/her the limited nature of in camera review, that the witness is
not waiving his/her privilege, and that the judge is the only one who will
initially see any of the information.3 122 S.W.3d at 564. The trial court should
also explain to the witness that the defendant is entitled to any exculpatory or
potentially exculpatory information, as determined by the judge, and if the
witness does not turn over the providers’ names, that his/her testimony may
be excluded at trial. At this point, the witness should be allowed to take a
break and consult with the Commonwealth.
After consultation, the witness should retake the stand and be
questioned on a limited basis only as to the names of his/her health care
providers during the applicable time period. Based on the witness’s answer,
the defendant may then subpoena the records for in camera review. If the
witness still refuses to answer, his/her testimony may be excluded at the
discretion of the trial court.
3 We emphasize that trial courts should keep a detailed record of each step of
this process, as appellate courts will need to know exactly what the trial court looked
at and what the defense was eventually allowed to see, if anything.
8
Thus, the in camera review protects the witness’s privilege, and only
when the trial court determines that exculpatory evidence exists within the
records will confidential information be released to the defense. By using this
new subpoena procedure, we stay within the Barroso framework, “obviat[ing]
the need to complicate the procedure by placing the fate of the prosecution in
the hands of a witness,” and allow the Commonwealth to avoid the conflict of
having to directly assist the defense team. 122 S.W.3d at 564-65.
IV. Conclusion.
We hold that while the trial court held a proper Barroso hearing and did
not abuse its discretion in determining that a reasonable belief existed that
exculpatory information may be found in the January 2017 records, on remand
the trial court should follow the process identified above for retrieving these
records and it should not order the Commonwealth to retrieve the names of the
healthcare providers directly from the victim. Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals’ opinion is reversed, and the petition for writ of prohibition is granted.
The trial court is instructed to follow the framework set forth above to retrieve
the relevant documents for in camera review.
All sitting. All concur.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General of Kentucky
Jeanne Deborah Anderson
Assistant Attorney General
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
9
Not Represented by Counsel
COUNSEL FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST:
Matthew Jess Farra
10