State of Maine v. Gregory S. Olah ( 2018 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2018 ME 56 Docket: Aro-16-569
Argued: September 14, 2017
Decided: April 26, 2018
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
GREGORY S. OLAH
SAUFLEY, C.J.
[¶1] Gregory S. Olah appeals from a judgment of conviction of gross
sexual assault of a person under the age of fourteen (Class A), 17-A M.R.S.A.
§ 253(1)(B) (Supp. 2002),1 and unlawful sexual contact (Class C), 17-A M.R.S.A.
§ 255(1)(C), (2) (Supp. 2002),2 entered by the court (Aroostook County,
Stewart, J.) after a jury found him guilty. He challenges the court’s (Hunter, J.)
decision to quash his subpoenas of mental health records of the alleged victim
1 Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(B) (Supp. 2002) was amended effective July 30, 2004, though only
to modify syntax to accommodate an additional paragraph (C). See P.L. 2003, ch. 711, § B-2 (codified
at 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(B), (C) (2017)).
2
A new statute was enacted to replace former 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255 (Supp. 2002), effective
January 31, 2003. See P.L. 2001, ch. 383, §§ 22, 23 (codified as subsequently amended at 17-A M.R.S.
§ 255-A (2017)). Although the indictment alleged that the crimes occurred in 2001 and the evidence
showed conduct occurring in the autumn of 2003, Olah does not argue that he was charged under the
wrong statute. Moreover, in substance, current section 255-A(1)(E) is identical to former section
255(1)(C).
2
without first viewing the records in camera, the court’s denial of his motion to
suppress statements made to law enforcement, and the court’s (Stewart, J.)
denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We discern no error in the
court’s rulings on either the motion to suppress or the motion for a judgment
of acquittal, but we remand for the court to examine some or all of the
requested mental health records in camera.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could
rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. See State
v. Cummings, 2017 ME 143, ¶ 3, 166 A.3d 996. In the autumn of 2003, Olah’s
friend’s six-year-old daughter was sleeping in her bedroom in Presque Isle. She
awoke to find that Olah had undressed her and was touching her genitals with
his mouth. Later that day, Olah took her to play at a local park. Olah then took
her to another friend’s nearby home, where he bathed her and briefly rubbed a
towel between her legs. After the bath, the two were in the living room when
Olah removed his erect penis from his pants, had the girl come to him, grabbed
her hand, and made her touch his penis.
3
[¶3] In early 2014, the girl, who was still a minor, told her counselor what
had happened. The counselor reported the information to state authorities as
a mandatory reporter. See 22 M.R.S. § 4011-A(1)(A)(22), (2) (2017).
[¶4] In September 2014, Olah was charged by criminal complaint with
gross sexual assault (Class A), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 253(1)(B), and unlawful sexual
contact (Class C), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255(1)(C), (2). An indictment for the same
charges was filed that November. The indictment alleged—based on the
available evidence—that Olah had committed the crimes “[o]n or about
between July 1, 2001 and September 30, 2001.”3
[¶5] In June 2015, Olah moved to suppress incriminating statements he
had made during a police interview. The court (Hunter, J.) held a hearing and
denied the motion to suppress, determining that Olah had not been in custody
when he made the statements and that he had spoken to the police voluntarily.
[¶6] Before trial, Olah moved for the production of the child’s mental
health records from the Aroostook Mental Health Center (AMHC) and the
child’s counselor, who was an employee of AMHC. He asserted in that motion
that the records were not confidential or privileged because the child waived
3 “[I]f the victim had not attained the age of 16 years at the time of the crime, a prosecution for
. . . unlawful sexual contact . . . or gross sexual assault . . . may be commenced at any time.” 17-A M.R.S.
§ 8(1) (2017).
4
any privilege by voluntarily disclosing the contents of her counseling when she
spoke with law enforcement officers. See M.R. Evid. 510(a) (“A person who has
a privilege under these rules waives the privilege if the person . . . while holding
the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to the disclosure of any
significant part of the privileged matter.”). He also asserted that the contents
of the records would likely be admissible for impeachment purposes. The
proposed subpoenas requested “[a]ll counseling records of [the child] and [the
counselor] involving any discussion of sexual abuse.”
[¶7] The court entered an order on January 27, 2016, in which it
determined that Olah had met the threshold requirements of relevancy,
admissibility, and specificity to authorize the issuance of subpoenas and
directed that subpoenas be served. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 17A(f). After being
served with a notice to produce records, AMHC and the counselor objected to
the production of documents and moved to quash the subpoenas, asserting that
the documents requested were, despite the mandatory report of child abuse,
confidential by statute and could not be disclosed even for in camera review.4
4
Neither AMHC nor the counselor asserted a claim of the privilege established in M.R.
Evid. 503(b)(1) and (d)(2).
5
See 22 M.R.S. § 1711-C (2017);5 34-B M.R.S. § 1207 (2017).6 Olah argued in
opposition that the child had waived the confidentiality of the records through
her own statements to law enforcement, that Rule 17A(f) allows the court to
require the production of otherwise confidential material for in camera review
and possible disclosure to the defendant, and that the materials can be used for
impeachment.
[¶8] The court granted the motion to quash without having viewed the
records in camera. It concluded that the child had not voluntarily waived
confidentiality, either through her statements to law enforcement or through
the mandated report of her counselor. The court distinguished the confidential
records of the counselor from the child’s statements to law enforcement, which
were properly the subject of discovery and, to the extent appropriate pursuant
to the Rules of Evidence, could be used at trial. It further stated that it was “not
persuaded that its preliminary conclusion that the Defendant had met his
threshold obligation to demonstrate relevance, admissibility and specificity
necessarily leads to an obligation to produce the [counseling] records for in
5 Recent amendments to 22 M.R.S. § 1711-C do not affect the issues raised on appeal. See P.L.
2017, ch. 203, §§ 2-4 (effective Nov. 1, 2017) (codified at 22 M.R.S. § 1711-C(6)(S)-(U) (2017)).
6 Recent amendments to 34-B M.R.S. § 1207(1) do not affect the issues raised on appeal. See, e.g.,
P.L. 2017, ch. 147, §§ 6, 7 (effective June 8, 2017) (codified at 34-B M.R.S. § 1207(1)(B) (2017)).
6
camera review.” The court reasoned that Rule 17A anticipates objections to the
subpoena and that the court must then consider “whether the claimed privilege
should be honored or not.” Upon considering that question, the court quashed
the subpoenas as mere “fishing expeditions,” citing State v. Watson, 1999 ME
41, ¶¶ 6, 7, 726 A.2d 214, and State v. Dube, 2014 ME 43, ¶¶ 8-10, 87 A.3d 1219.
[¶9] In November 2016, almost two years after the indictment,7 the court
(Stewart, J.) held a two-day jury trial. The evidence was conflicting regarding
the date when Olah had been present at the girl’s home. At the close of
evidence, Olah moved for a judgment of acquittal on the gross sexual assault
charge because the alleged victim had testified that her eyes were closed when
she felt the mouth on her genitals, and she therefore could not sufficiently
identify Olah as the person who had committed that crime. The court denied
the motion. Olah did not testify and offered no additional evidence.
[¶10] In its closing argument, the State argued that the events probably
happened when the alleged victim was six years old in fall 2003. Olah argued
that the indictment’s allegation of events in 2001 could not be proved and that
the discrepancies cast reasonable doubt on whether the events happened at all.
7 The record does not contain a speedy trial demand, and it appears that Olah was not incarcerated
while awaiting trial.
7
[¶11] The court gave its final instructions to the jury, which returned
guilty verdicts on both counts. Olah then moved for a judgment of acquittal on
the ground that the evidence could not establish the identity of the person who
committed the assault in the bedroom and that the evidence presented and
argued by the State was outside the scope of the indictment, which prejudiced
his ability to prepare a defense.
[¶12] The court heard arguments on Olah’s motion for a judgment of
acquittal on December 2, 2016, and denied the motion with respect to
identification because the girl testified about identifying features of her
assailant, including the description of his facial hair, that were consistent with
only one person who was in the house at the time—Olah. The court further
concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support each element of each
count. The court also denied the motion as to the date discrepancy because
Olah, without objecting, used that discrepancy during his closing argument to
try to discredit the State’s case and undermine witness credibility; the date
discrepancy did not affect the statute of limitations or any elements of the
crime, including the element of the age range of the victim; and there was no
demonstration of prejudice.
8
[¶13] The court then held a sentencing hearing. On the gross sexual
assault count, the court sentenced Olah to fourteen years in prison, all but seven
years suspended, and six years of probation with conditions limiting his contact
with children. For the unlawful sexual contact, the court sentenced Olah to
forty-two months of incarceration to be served concurrently with the sentence
for the gross sexual assault. The court also ordered Olah to pay $50 to the
Victims’ Compensation Fund.
[¶14] Olah timely appealed and applied for review of his sentence.
15 M.R.S. §§ 2115, 2151 (2017); M.R. App. P. 2.8 The Sentence Review Panel
denied Olah leave to appeal from his sentence, see 15 M.R.S. § 2152 (2017), and
the appeal from the judgment of conviction is now before us. See State v. Olah,
No. SRP-16-568 (Me. Sent. Rev. Panel Feb. 27, 2017).
II. DISCUSSION
[¶15] On the entire record presented, we conclude, without further
discussion, that (1) the court (Hunter, J.) did not err in its findings or in its
application of the law in denying Olah’s motion to suppress,9 and (2) the court
8 The restyled Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure were not yet in effect at the time that Olah filed
his notice of appeal. See M.R. App. P. 1 (providing that the restyled Rules “apply to all appeals in
which the notice of appeal is filed on or after September 1, 2017”).
9 See State v. Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ¶ 17, 151 A.3d 911; State v. Kierstead, 2015 ME 45, ¶ 14, 114
A.3d 984; State v. Lowe, 2013 ME 92, ¶ 13, 81 A.3d 360; State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126, ¶¶ 21, 22, 55
9
(Stewart, J.) did not err in denying Olah’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on
the record before it.10 We write to address the court’s (Hunter, J.) application
of Rule 17A of the Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure and its decision
to quash the subpoenas of the child’s mental health records.
[¶16] Olah first contends that those mental health records are not
confidential because the child waived their confidentiality by speaking about
the content of her counseling sessions with law enforcement present. Olah
further argues that the court should have reviewed the records from AMHC in
camera both to protect Olah’s constitutional right to present a complete defense
and to be consistent with the court’s earlier determination that Olah had made
a preliminary showing that the records could be subpoenaed. See M.R.U.
Crim. P. 17A(f).
A.3d 432; State v. Nadeau, 2010 ME 71, ¶¶ 6, 57-58, 1 A.3d 445; State v. Theriault, 425 A.2d 986, 990
(Me. 1981); see also United States v. Jacques, 744 F.3d 804, 812 (1st Cir. 2014).
10 The evidence of record fully supports jury findings that Olah’s mouth made direct contact with
the girl’s genitals when the girl was under the age of fourteen, see 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 251(1)(C)(1),
253(1)(B) (Supp. 2002), and that he touched her genitals, and had her touch his, for the purpose of
arousing or gratifying his sexual desire when she was under the age of fourteen, see 17-A M.R.S.A.
§§ 251(1)(D), 255(1)(C) (Supp. 2002); see also 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(E) (2017); State v. Adams,
2015 ME 30, ¶ 19, 113 A.3d 583. Any discrepancy between the dates stated in the indictment and
the evidence produced at trial is not fatal to the conviction. See State v. Lyon, 2016 ME 22, ¶ 8, 131
A.3d 918; State v. Standring, 2008 ME 188, ¶ 14, 960 A.2d 1210.
10
A. Standards of Review
[¶17] We review a ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena for an abuse
of discretion. See State v. Marroquin-Aldana, 2014 ME 47, ¶ 33, 89 A.3d 519.
The decision to exclude testimony based on the assertion of confidentiality or a
privilege rests in the sound discretion of the court. See Watson, 1999 ME 41,
¶ 5, 726 A.2d 214. Legal conclusions, including conclusions on constitutional
due process issues, are reviewed de novo. Dube, 2014 ME 43, ¶ 8, 87 A.3d 1219;
State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126, ¶ 35, 55 A.3d 432.
B. Confidentiality Statutes, M.R.U. Crim. P. 17A(f), and Due Process
[¶18] In general, “[a]n individual’s health care information is confidential
and may not be disclosed other than to the individual by the health care
practitioner or facility.” 22 M.R.S. § 1711-C(2); see also 34-B M.R.S. §§ 1001(2),
1207(1) (2017) (providing that, with some exceptions, “[a]ll . . . medical and
administrative records . . . pertaining to any client [receiving services from an
entity licensed to provide services falling under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Health and Human Services] shall be kept confidential and may
not be disclosed by any person”). A mental health professional must, however,
“immediately report or cause a report to be made to the [Department of Health
and Human Services] when the person knows or has reasonable cause to
11
suspect that a child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected.” 22 M.R.S.
§ 4011-A(1)(A)(22). In addition, “[w]hen, while acting in a professional
capacity, any person required to report under this section knows or has
reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused . . . by a person not
responsible for the child . . . the person immediately shall report or cause a
report to be made to the appropriate district attorney’s office.” Id. § 4011-A(2). 1. Waiver of Confidentiality
[¶19] The court correctly determined that neither the mandated report
to law enforcement by the counselor nor the alleged victim’s answers to
questions posed by law enforcement constituted a waiver of the confidentiality
of the victim’s counseling records.
[¶20] A mandated report of suspected abuse by a provider does not
create a waiver of the confidentiality of records by a patient. Cf. id.
§ 1711-C(14) (prohibiting as void against public policy any agreement to waive
the provisions of section 1711-C). Because the provider must disclose the
information about suspected abuse whether or not the patient consents, a
patient’s voluntary waiver of the confidentiality of her records cannot be
inferred from a provider’s mandated report. See id. § 4011-A(1)(A)(22), (2).
Nor does the mandatory report require the automatic disclosure of patient
12
mental health records to a defendant in a criminal proceeding. See generally id.
§ 1711-C(6) (listing the limited situations in which medical information may or
must be disclosed without patient authorization).
[¶21] Addressing Olah’s argument that the alleged victim herself took
action that directly waived the confidentiality of the counseling records by
answering questions from law enforcement or otherwise, we are unpersuaded.
Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that, when speaking with police
after her counselor made the report, the alleged victim executed any written
consent for the records’ disclosure, either on her own or through her parents
acting on her behalf. See 34-B M.R.S § 1207(1)(A) (“A client, his legal guardian,
if any, or, if he is a minor, his parent or legal guardian may give his informed
written consent to the disclosure of information.”). Thus, the court did not err
in determining that the records remained confidential and that confidentiality
had not been waived or disclosure authorized by the alleged victim.11
11 Because we are addressing only the statutory confidentiality provision that the mental health
provider asserted, the rule respecting the waiver of a rule-based privilege by a patient through
voluntary disclosure in M.R. Evid. 510 is inapposite. See M.R. Evid. 510(a) (“A person who has a
privilege under these rules waives the privilege if the person or the person’s predecessor while
holding the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to the disclosure of any significant part of the
privileged matter.” (emphasis added)).
13
2. Disclosure Required by the Due Process Clause
[¶22] A court may, however, order the disclosure of otherwise
confidential health care information if that disclosure is required as a matter of
law. See 22 M.R.S. § 1711-C(6)(F-1) (allowing the disclosure of otherwise
confidential health care information “[a]s directed by order of a court”); M.R.U.
Crim. P. 17A. “[T]he majority of jurisdictions in the United States have
determined that a criminal defendant’s right, provided certain requirements
are met, may supersede a witness’s rights or statutory privilege.” State v.
Blackwell, 801 S.E.2d 713, 726 & n.19 (S.C. 2017) (citing cases). In criminal
proceedings, upon a preliminary showing by the defendant, a court has the
authority to review the otherwise confidential records in camera to determine
whether the records contain exculpatory evidence, including evidence directly
undermining witness credibility, that must be provided to the defendant to
ensure compliance with the fundamental right to due process. See M.R.U.
Crim. P. 17A; see also U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480
U.S. 39, 56, 60 (1987); 22 M.R.S. § 1711-C(6)(F-1).
[¶23] Rule 17A of the Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure
provides the process by which a defendant may seek disclosure of privileged or
confidential records. The rule allows a party who is aware of the potential for
14
an assertion of a privilege or of confidentiality to move in limine for a
determination before serving a subpoena. M.R.U. Crim. P. 17A(f). In that
motion, a party must set forth the following:
(1) the particular documents sought by the subpoena with a
reasonable degree of specificity of the information contained
therein; (2) the efforts made by the moving party in procuring the
information contained in the requested documents by other
means; (3) that the moving party cannot properly prepare for trial
without such production of the documents; and (4) that the
requested information is likely to be admissible at trial. The
motion in limine shall be accompanied by a copy of the yet
unserved subpoena.
Id. The court must, upon receipt of the motion, “make a preliminary
determination that the moving party has sufficiently set forth the relevancy,
admissibility, and specificity of the requested documents.” Id. If the court
determines that the minimal threshold information has been provided, the
court “shall direct the clerk to set the matter for hearing and issue a notice of
hearing.” Id. After the clerk issues the notice, the subpoena must be served. Id.
“Upon receipt of the subpoena, the motion and the notice, the subpoenaed
individual or entity to whom the subpoena is directed shall either submit the
documentary evidence subject to the subpoena for in camera review by the
court or provide in writing reasons for the failure to submit the documentary
evidence for in camera review before the date of the hearing.” Id. “After the 15
hearing, the court may issue any order necessary to protect any party’s or
nonparty’s privileges, confidentiality protections, or privacy protections under
federal law, Maine law, or the Maine Rules of Evidence.” Id.
[¶24] The State is correct that Rule 17A(f) is not a discovery device. See
Marroquin-Aldana, 2014 ME 47, ¶ 37, 89 A.3d 519. The rule does, however,
provide a means for a defendant to seek otherwise privileged or confidential
information that is favorable to the defense and material to the alleged crimes
so that the defendant has the opportunity to present a complete defense. See
M.R.U. Crim. P. 17A(f); see also U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Ritchie, 480 U.S. at
56, 60.
[¶25] We address, then, the task of the court when a defendant moves
for it to review records in camera. At least with respect to the otherwise
confidential documents contained in the materials held by prosecutors and
state agencies, the Supreme Court of the United States has required that courts,
to ensure that a defendant is afforded due process, review the records to
determine whether any portions of the requested records must be disclosed
because they are “both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or
punishment.” Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57 (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87
(1963)); see also State v. Twardus, 2013 ME 74, ¶ 31, 72 A.3d 523; Dunn v.
16
Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 751, 767-68 (Ky. 2012) (“Exculpatory evidence
is . . . evidence favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment,
including impeachment evidence.” (quotation marks omitted)).
[¶26] Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision to maintain the
confidentiality of such records to determine whether the court abused its
discretion in quashing the subpoena as to any portions of the records that were
exculpatory, that is, “favorable to the accused and material to guilt or
punishment.” Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57. That materiality is established if the
disclosure of those portions of the records “‘probably would have changed the
outcome of [the] trial.’” State v. Perry, 552 A.2d 545, 547 (Me. 1989) (quoting
Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 58); see also Twardus, 2013 ME 74, ¶ 32, 72 A.3d 523.
[¶27] Some courts have drawn a distinction between state actors’
records and private providers’ records. See, e.g., State v. Pinder, 678 So. 2d 410,
414-17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996). Many courts, however, have applied the same
standards applicable to government records to determine whether otherwise
confidential records of private mental health providers must be disclosed to a
defendant. See, e.g., People v. McCray, 12 N.E.3d 1079, 1081-83 (N.Y. 2014);
State v. Green, 646 N.W.2d 298, 309 (Wis. 2002) (requiring a court conducting
an in camera review of private counseling records to determine “whether the
17
records contain any relevant information that is material to the defense of the
accused” (emphasis omitted) (quotation marks omitted));12 see also State v.
Lynch, 885 N.W.2d 89, 121-22 & n.11 (Wis. 2016) (Abrahamson & A.W. Bradley,
JJ., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (citing cases).
[¶28] We agree that the standard applied should be the same regardless
of whether the confidential records are held by the government or a private
entity. Neither the alleged victim’s interest in patient privacy nor the
defendant’s interest in disclosure will vary depending upon whether a public
or private entity holds the medical or mental health records. Moreover, Maine’s
statutes provide a framework that imposes public obligations on private mental
health providers; although a private mental health provider may not be a state
actor, such a provider is licensed by the State and has a legislatively imposed
obligation to report child abuse. See 22 M.R.S. § 4011-A(1)(A)(22), (2). The
confidentiality statutes, which contain the exception to confidentiality for
materials ordered disclosed by a court, also impose obligations on private
mental health providers, including as necessary to afford a defendant facing
12 Although the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently considered overruling Green, the court was
divided on the question, and therefore Green remains the law in Wisconsin. See State v. Lynch, 885
N.W.2d 89, 90-91 & n.9 (Wis. 2016) (Gableman, J., authoring “lead” opinion).
18
criminal charges access to any exculpatory materials. See 22 M.R.S.
§ 1711-C(6)(F-1); 34-B M.R.S. § 1207(1)(C); see also Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57.
[¶29] We join the many courts that apply the Ritchie test to determine
whether a defendant, to have a fair trial with the opportunity to present a full
defense, must be allowed access to specific portions of a State witness’s mental
health records held by a private entity even if the records are otherwise
confidential. See Lynch, 885 N.W.2d at 122 n.11 (Abrahamson & A.W. Bradley,
JJ., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (citing cases). Thus, as in Ritchie
where the records were created by state entities, defendants’ due process
interests make it necessary for courts to review in camera specified mental
health records held by private providers and determine whether any portions
of those records are “both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or
punishment.” Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57; see id. at 60. [¶30] In considering the interests at stake during an in camera review, a
court must weigh the defendant’s interest in learning of potentially exculpatory
evidence—and the public interest in the truth-seeking function of the courts—
against the State’s and alleged victim’s interests in preserving patient privacy
and the State’s interest in receiving reports of possible crimes and abuse
without subjecting the alleged victim to the overbroad release of confidential
19
information in a public proceeding. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57-58; see also
People v. Bean, 560 N.E.2d 258, 274 (Ill. 1990) (stating that, after in camera
review, a court will order the disclosure of “only those portions [of a witness’s
mental health records] that are relevant when that relevance is not outweighed
by other factors”); McCray, 12 N.E.3d at 1081 (reviewing “whether the trial
court abused its discretion in finding defendant’s interest in obtaining the
records to be outweighed by the complainant’s interest in confidentiality,” with
the defendant’s interest “outweighed only if there was no reasonable possibility
that the withheld materials would lead to his acquittal”); State v. Rehkop, 908
A.2d 488, 494 (Vt. 2006) (“When relevant evidence is excluded from the trial
process for some purpose other than enhancing the truth-seeking function, the
danger of convicting the innocent increases.”).
[¶31] Balancing these interests, courts may determine it necessary to
order the disclosure of a privately or governmentally held mental health record
when, for example, the patient stated that the charged crimes did not happen,
cf. State v. Johnson, 102 A.3d 295, 309-10 (Md. 2014) (summarizing cases in
which in camera review was necessary due to other evidence of recantation or
inconsistent statements); the alleged victim claimed to have recovered
previously “blocked” memories of the specifically alleged abuse many years
20
after the abuse was alleged to have occurred, see Commonwealth v. T.J.W., 114
A.3d 1098, 1100, 1103-05 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015); or the record contains evidence
that an alleged victim suffered from hallucinations, see Commonwealth v.
Fayerweather, 546 N.E.2d 345, 347 (Mass. 1989).
[¶32] If, however, a court “could reasonably think there [is] no more than
a remote possibility that disclosure of the records . . . would lead to defendant’s
acquittal” because the information in the records is inculpatory, cumulative, or
“of little if any relevance to the case,” the court acts “within its discretion in
finding the records’ relevance to be outweighed by the complainant’s legitimate
interest in confidentiality.” McCray, 12 N.E.3d at 1081, 1083. Ultimately, a
court must order disclosure if there is a reasonable probability that the
evidence in the otherwise confidential records could change the outcome of the
trial. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57-58.
C. Review of the Motion Court’s Application of the Statutes and Rule
[¶33] Here, the court found that Olah made the preliminary showing of
“relevancy, admissibility, and specificity,” M.R.U. Crim. P. 17A(f), necessary to
proceed to issue the subpoena, but it granted the motion to quash without
undertaking an in camera review, concluding that Olah’s efforts to obtain the
records amounted to a prohibited “fishing expedition,” Watson, 1999 ME 41,
21
¶ 7, 726 A.2d 214. In different circumstances, we affirmed the quashing of a
subpoena because the defendant had only speculated that the records could
contain evidence that his daughter was fabricating allegations of sexual assault
because she did not like his wife and wanted to leave his household. Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 7. As a court in another jurisdiction has held, “‘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.’”13
People v. Foggy, 521 N.E.2d 86, 92 (Ill. 1988) (quoting People v. District Court,
719 P.2d 722, 726 (Colo. 1986)).
[¶34] Olah seeks records that are likely to contain at least some
information about the child’s allegations of sexual assault that led directly to
the charges at issue here. Although those records are almost certain to contain
inculpatory information that led to the report of suspected child abuse, they
may also contain exculpatory information about, for instance, the child’s level
of certainty in identifying the person who touched her with his mouth in her
bedroom. Because information about the specific charged crimes likely exists
13 Notably, in People v. Foggy, the statute included a provision governing the confidentiality of
records. 521 N.E.2d 86, 87-88 (Ill. 1988).
22
in the specified records, the circumstances differ from the situation in
Marroquin-Aldana, where the subpoena sought from the attorney of the
victim’s mother the mother’s entire immigration file, particularly her U visa
application, but did not state what specific information the application would
contain that would be relevant to Marroquin-Aldana’s defense. 2014 ME 47,
¶¶ 2, 36, 37, 89 A.3d 519. Similarly, although the exact contents of the records
subpoenaed here are not known, this matter is unlike the situation in Dube,
where the counseling records predated the charged crimes and the defendant
conceded that it was impossible to know what was in the records. 2014 ME 43,
¶ 10 & n.3, 87 A.3d 1219.
[¶35] Because the review must by definition be focused on the specific
charges against the defendant and the potential for exculpatory information, a
court is not required to review all counseling records ever created with respect
to an alleged victim; a broad “fishing expedition” will not be allowed because
an alleged victim has a strong privacy interest in the confidentiality of records
that do not pertain to the allegations against the defendant. Watson, 1999 ME
41, ¶ 7, 726 A.2d 214; see Dube, 2014 ME 43, ¶ 10 & n.3, 87 A.3d 1219.
[¶36] In the matter before us, however, it is relatively certain that the
records contain some evidence concerning the exact crimes charged, and the
23
identity of the alleged perpetrator was directly at issue at trial. This is a
circumstance in which, based on principles of due process, the court must
proceed with an in camera review. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 60 (“We find that
Ritchie’s interest (as well as that of the Commonwealth) in ensuring a fair trial
can be protected fully by requiring that the [Children and Youth Services] files
be submitted only to the trial court for in camera review.”); see also State v.
Blake, 63 P.3d 56, 62 (Utah 2002) (holding that in camera review “represents a
satisfactory method of balancing the interests of privacy and full reporting of
crime with defendants’ ability to present the best case at trial”). Thus, the court
erred in failing to undertake an in camera review of the records before the trial.
III. REMEDY
[¶37] The circumstances of this ruling are unusual. To assure the
protection of Olah’s right to access exculpatory evidence, we must remand for
the trial court to undertake the in camera review.
[¶38] Recognizing that the review may not lead to the release of any
records, however, and acknowledging that an otherwise fair trial has been
completed, we do not vacate the judgment of conviction at this point. Instead,
we remand the matter for the court to order AMHC to produce the relevant
counseling records to the court. The court will then conduct the required in
24
camera review. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 17A(f). The court will review those records
to determine whether any portions of them are favorable to Olah and material
to his guilt, such that his interest in the disclosure of those portions of the
records and the State’s interest in the truth-seeking function of the courts
outweigh the countervailing interests in patient confidentiality and the
reporting of crimes. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57-58; Bean, 560 N.E.2d at 274;
McCray, 12 N.E.3d at 1081. The materiality of the records to Olah’s guilt
depends on whether there is a reasonable probability that the release to Olah
of any portions of the records would have changed the outcome of a trial in
Olah’s favor.14 See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 57-58.
[¶39] If the court does not order the release of any records, the verdict
and sentence will be complete and final. Olah may appeal the court’s final
denial of access to the records.
[¶40] In the event that the court does order the release of any of the
counseling records after its in camera review, the court will have, by definition,
undertaken the application of the legal standard to the release of the counseling
records in the absence of any advocacy from the parties about those particular
14 Because the records must be reviewed in the context of the trial record, the matter must be
remanded to the jurist who presided over the trial. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 61
(1987).
25
documents. Accordingly, following the release of any of the counseling records,
the parties will have an opportunity to review the selected records and provide
additional advocacy. Specifically, Olah may move for a new trial after the State
and Olah’s counsel have had an opportunity to review those records. See M.R.U.
Crim. P. 33. The court will then be called upon to determine whether there is a
reasonable probability that the availability of the now-released records in
advance of trial would have changed the outcome of the trial.
The entry is:
Order quashing subpoenas vacated. Remanded
for the production and in camera review of
certain counseling records, consistent with this
opinion, and any further proceedings
determined to be necessary. In all other
respects, judgment affirmed on the record
before us.
Hunter J. Tzovarras, Esq. (orally), Bangor, for appellant Gregory S. Olah
Todd R. Collins, District Attorney, and Carrie L. Linthicum, Dep. Dist. Atty.
(orally), Prosecutorial District 8, Presque Isle, for appellee State of Maine
Aroostook County Superior Court docket number CR-2014-437
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY