People v. Graham
406 Ill. App. 3d 1183
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- The defendant was convicted by a Christian County jury on six counts of criminal sexual assault involving S.G., who was 11–12 years old during the offenses.
- The defense moved to subpoena S.G.’s mental health records for an in camera review to probe potential credibility issues.
- The trial court denied the subpoena, ruling the records were not shown to be material or relevant and noting privilege concerns and logistical barriers to cross-state production.
- S.G. testified about bipolar disorder, depression, and related treatment; the court limited testimony regarding PTSD and medications to avoid prejudice.
- The court later imposed a 60-year aggregate sentence; the defendant challenged the subpoena ruling and a restitution award to S.G.’s grandfather for travel.
- On appeal, the defendant argued the restitution to the grandfather was improper and the subpoena denial violated his rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the subpoena for S.G.’s mental health records was an abuse of discretion | Graham argues records were material to credibility | Graham contends in camera review and disclosure were required | No abuse; records not shown material or relevant |
| Whether the court properly applied privilege and logistics to the in camera review | State asserts privilege and lack of nexus; no in camera disclosure needed | Graham contends privilege should yield to material impeachment | Court did not abuse discretion; no sufficient nexus to impeach |
| Whether the restitution order to S.G.’s grandfather was proper | Restitution authorized to compensate actual losses by the victim and family | Grandfather not a statutory 'victim' and ability-to-pay concerns | Restitution to grandfather upheld; grandfather fits as substitute victim and statute construed broadly |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Foggy, 121 Ill.2d 337 (Ill. 1988) (privileged communications require demonstrated need for disclosure)
- People v. K.S., 387 Ill.App.3d 570 (Ill. App. 2008) (two-step discovery for mental health records; materiality and relevance)
- People v. Harlacher, 262 Ill.App.3d 1 (Ill. App. 1994) (in camera review when privilege claimed; standards for materiality)
- People v. Walton, 107 Ill.App.3d 698 (Ill. App. 1982) (limits on disclosure of victims' mental health records)
- People v. Dace, 114 Ill.App.3d 908 (Ill. App. 1983) (discussion of difficulty proving materiality without access to records)