People v. Sevedo, 2017 IL App (1st) 152541

Background

Alejandra Sevedo, receiving advocacy from Sarah’s Inn (a domestic violence program) during an armed-robbery prosecution, allegedly told a Sarah’s Inn advocate in court she would harm a police detective who testified against her. The advocate reported the statement to police under the Act’s imminent-risk exception.
A grand jury subpoena sought the advocate’s testimony; the circuit court quashed that subpoena on September 8, 2014, finding the communication privileged and the advocate’s prior disclosure proper.
The grand jury later indicted Sevedo for threatening a public official; the State issued a subpoena duces tecum to Sarah’s Inn for incident reports and records related to the July 28, 2014 report of threats.
Sarah’s Inn and its executive director, Carol Gall, moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the absolute statutory advocate–victim privilege (750 ILCS 60/227) and that the prior grand jury ruling precluded relitigation; the court ordered in camera production for review and held contemnors in contempt when they refused to produce documents for review.
On appeal, contemnors argued (1) the section 227 privilege is absolute and bars in camera review, (2) res judicata/collateral estoppel prevented relitigation, and (3) contempt sanctions should be vacated because they reasonably asserted the privilege.
The appellate court held the privilege is absolute, the subpoenaed materials fell within its scope, in camera review was unnecessary on these facts, and reversed the contempt finding and vacated the fine.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the communications/records are protected by the section 227 advocate–victim privilege	Statements were made in open court after unrelated testimony and thus fall outside the advocate–victim context; if within the privilege, the imminent-risk exception allows disclosure	The statements were made in the course of advocacy (advocate accompanied client to court) and thus are confidential communications protected by an absolute privilege; the advocate’s earlier disclosure under the imminent-risk exception did not waive the privilege	Court held the statements and records were within the broad scope of section 227 and thus absolutely privileged
Whether the imminent-risk exception permits ongoing disclosure to the State after the advocate already reported the threat	Imminent-risk exception applies and does not expire; disclosure to law enforcement removes privilege for subsequent prosecutorial discovery	The exception is tied to a present imminent risk; once risk was dissipated by reporting/arrest, the exception no longer authorizes continued disclosure	Court held the exception is limited to present/imminent risk and does not authorize indefinite disclosure; here it did not authorize production to the State
Whether the trial court may conduct an in camera review of records claimed privileged under section 227	Trial court may and should review documents in camera to decide privilege applicability	Section 227 contains no in camera-review provision and the privilege is absolute, so the court cannot compel in camera inspection	Court held trial courts have authority under Supreme Court Rules to conduct in camera review, but on these facts the face of the subpoena and undisputed facts made such review unnecessary
Whether the prior grand-jury quash ruling precludes relitigation (res judicata/collateral estoppel)	State contends quash ruling did not bind subsequent criminal proceeding	Contemnors argue res judicata/collateral estoppel prevents relitigation	Court rejected res judicata/collateral estoppel: grand-jury quash was interlocutory/ex parte and not a final adjudication, so it did not preclude later litigation

Key Cases Cited

Cox v. Yellow Cab Co., 61 Ill.2d 416 (privilege claimant bears burden to prove privilege)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (privileges disfavor exclusion of evidence and must be narrowly construed)
People v. Gemeny, 313 Ill. App. 3d 902 (professional relationship privilege can extend beyond formal sessions)
Thomas v. Page, 361 Ill. App. 3d 484 (distinguishing absolute vs. qualified privileges and discussing in camera review under court rules)
Klain v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, 2016 IL 118217 (statutory text must explicitly create nondiscoverable privilege)
Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill.2d 60 (contempt may be used to test discovery orders)