State v. Fay, 167 A.3d 897

Background

Defendant William Fay shot and killed the victim and claimed self-defense at trial; he did not dispute firing the shots.
Fay sought the victim’s psychiatric records and testimony from the victim’s treating psychiatrist to show the victim’s propensity for aggression and possible medication effects.
The victim’s authorized representative refused to waive the psychiatrist–patient privilege under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-146d–e.
Trial court initially ordered records subpoenaed for in camera review but later declined to review or disclose them, concluding it could not create a nonstatutory exception to the statutory privilege.
Fay raised for the first time on appeal constitutional claims (right to present a defense, compulsory process, due process); the trial record lacked evidence showing privileged records were necessary to his self-defense claim.
Supreme Court held (1) a trial court must conduct an in camera review when the accused makes a sufficient preliminary showing of compelling need for a deceased victim’s psychiatric records material to a self-defense claim, but (2) Fay’s record failed to meet that threshold so his unpreserved constitutional claims were not reviewable under Golding; judgment affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fay)	Held
Whether an accused is entitled to in camera review of a homicide victim’s privileged psychiatric records to support a self-defense claim	Privilege is broad; no statutory exception applies and court cannot create nonstatutory exceptions; confrontation not implicated because victim is deceased	Constitutional right to present a defense/compulsory process requires at least in camera review when records may contain material exculpatory evidence	Court: In exceptional circumstances, defendant may trigger in camera review by showing a compelling need (centrality, significance, lack of alternate sources); if material, disclose.
Standard for preliminary showing to trigger in camera review	Require strong proof; privilege should not be lightly breached	Asked for in camera review based on testimony that victim saw psychiatrist, had depression, and medication bottles found	Court: Higher "compelling need" standard for deceased victim records — consider centrality to defense, potential significance, and unavailability of less intrusive sources.
Whether Fay preserved constitutional claims for appellate review	Argued at trial primarily under confrontation clause; did not present same constitutional theories later	Contended trial court’s refusal violated right to present a defense and compulsory process	Court: Claims unpreserved; review under Golding allowed only if record adequate — here record inadequate, so claims not reviewable.
Whether the existing record showed privileged records were necessary	Argued defendant failed to identify diagnosis involving aggression or link between meds and aggressiveness	Argued victim had depression, treatment, and medications (Risperdal, Librium) that could affect temperament, and past fights supported need	Court: Defendant failed to show necessary link or present expert proof re: medications; mere evidence of treatment/depression insufficient to satisfy compelling-need threshold.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (1984) (trial court may conduct in camera review of privileged psychiatric records to determine confrontation clause impact; testimony may be stricken if witness refuses review)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognition of federal psychotherapist–patient privilege and policies supporting confidentiality)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (constitutional dimensions of evidence production and balancing interests in criminal process)
State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101 (2012) (trial court must conduct in camera review when reasonable grounds that privileged records are material in mitigation)
State v. Kemah, 289 Conn. 411 (2008) (courts lack authority to create nonstatutory exceptions to psychiatric privilege)
United States v. Hansen, 955 F. Supp. 1225 (D. Mont. 1997) (district court ordered production of homicide victim’s psychiatric records where defendant showed need for self-defense evidence)