Castrellon v. State
2013 Ark. App. 408
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Eric Castrellon, an adult, was charged with second-degree sexual assault for touching a 12‑year‑old girl (H.C.) allegedly "rubbing on [her] vaginal region" over her clothes while she slept at his home.
- Trial testimony: victim described the touching; Castrellon admitted touching but claimed it was accidental while checking for wetness and denied sexual intent.
- Castrellon moved pretrial for disclosure of H.C.’s medical, psychological, and counseling records; the circuit court conducted an in camera review and denied disclosure, finding no exculpatory (Brady) material.
- A jury convicted Castrellon; jury recommended five years’ probation, which the court imposed.
- On appeal, Castrellon challenged (1) denial of his directed‑verdict motion (sufficiency of evidence) and (2) denial of access to the victim’s treatment records (privilege and discovery issues).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual contact and sexual gratification | State: victim’s uncorroborated testimony that defendant "rubbed" her vaginal region is sufficient | Castrellon: touching was accidental, not for sexual gratification | Affirmed — viewing evidence in favor of verdict, victim’s testimony alone is substantial evidence of sexual contact and the jury may infer sexual purpose |
| Right to review privileged treatment records (Ritchie in camera review) | State: court’s in camera review satisfied defendant’s discovery rights | Castrellon: entitled to inspect records himself; sought more than in camera review | Affirmed — Ritchie permits only supervised in camera review by court, which was conducted |
| Applicability of patient‑physician privilege exception when victim is witness (Rule 503(d)(3)(A)) | State: privilege applies; exception does not apply because victim is not a party | Castrellon: records relevant to victim’s mental/emotional condition fall under exception | Affirmed — Arkansas precedent holds the exception applies only when a party places their condition at issue; victim/witness may assert privilege |
| Waiver of privilege by victim’s testimony about depression (Rule 510) | Castrellon: victim’s testimony about depression waived privilege | State: waiver not litigated below | Not considered on appeal — issue not raised or ruled on in trial court, appellate court refused to consider it first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (defendant entitled to exculpatory evidence in prosecution’s possession)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (defendant not entitled to unsupervised inspection of privileged files; courts must conduct in camera review)
- Brown v. State, 378 S.W.3d 66 (Ark.) (victim’s testimony alone can sustain sexual‑assault conviction; jury may infer sexual purpose)
- Paschal v. State, 388 S.W.3d 429 (Ark.) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence/directed verdict)
- Johnson v. State, 27 S.W.3d 405 (Ark.) (Rule 503(d)(3)(A) exception inapplicable unless a party places his/her condition at issue)
- State v. K.B., 379 S.W.3d 471 (Ark.) (victim of crime is not a party such that Rule 503(d)(3)(A) exception applies)