State v. Ayala, 183 Conn. App. 590

Defendant Walter Bobby Ayala lived with the then-12-year-old victim and her family; the victim later alleged two separate sexual contacts by the defendant while she was asleep.
The victim disclosed the abuse in April 2012 while visiting her father in New York; state agencies investigated and the victim received treatment at the Wheeler Clinic.
Defendant was charged with two counts of fourth degree sexual assault and one count of risk of injury to a child; case proceeded to jury trial and resulted in convictions and sentence.
Before trial, defendant moved for the victim’s mental health records from the Department of Children and Families and Wheeler Clinic under State v. Esposito and related authority, arguing relevance to capacity, motive, and bias.
The trial court conducted an in camera review after the victim consented, disclosed redacted copies of probative portions to the defense, and withheld other portions as protected; defendant did not object to the redactions at trial.
On appeal, defendant claimed for the first time that the court abused its discretion in withholding redacted portions, violating his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment confrontation rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claim is reviewable despite no trial objection	State: defendant failed to preserve; but appellate review may occur under Golding if conditions met	Ayala: seeks Golding review of alleged constitutional denial	Court: Golding review allowed; record adequate and constitutional magnitude satisfied, but claim fails on merits
Whether trial court abused discretion in disclosing redacted MH records after in camera review	State: court properly balanced victim privilege and confrontation rights; disclosed all especially probative material	Ayala: redactions withheld material needed to confront and impeach victim regarding motive, bias, and capacity	Court: no abuse; disclosed all material especially probative of truth-telling capacity; defendant could effectively cross-examine
Whether withheld material denied confrontation clause rights requiring striking testimony	State: in camera process satisfied Esposito; no strike required	Ayala: withholding undermined ability to confront witness, so testimony should have been stricken or produced	Court: not warranted; defendant obtained relevant impeachment material and cross-examined on motive, bias, and capacity
Whether any constitutional error was harmful	State: any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Ayala: redactions were prejudicial and not harmless	Court: defendant could fully and effectively cross-examine; no reversible constitutional error

State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166, 471 A.2d 949 (1984) (establishes in camera inspection procedure balancing witness psychiatric privilege against defendant’s confrontation rights)
State v. Bruno, 236 Conn. 514, 673 A.2d 1117 (1996) (privileged records may be disclosed when probative of capacity to relate truth or bias)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989) (criteria for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modification of Golding framework reaffirming review requirements)
State v. McMurray, 217 Conn. 243, 585 A.2d 677 (1991) (trial court discretion in determining which privileged records are probative and discoverable)
State v. Cecil J., 291 Conn. 813, 970 A.2d 710 (2009) (noting requirement to object to redactions at trial to preserve appellate review)
State v. Slimskey, 257 Conn. 842, 779 A.2d 723 (2001) (discusses need to balance psychiatric confidentiality and confrontation rights)