949 N.E.2d 789
Ind.2011Background
- Fromme, charged with two counts of child molesting, sought Crisis Connection’s records about alleged victims; Crisis Connection claimed the Indiana victim advocate privilege protected the records.
- Trial court ordered in camera review of Crisis Connection’s records for relevance before disclosure.
- Court of Appeals held privilege could apply and records could be reviewed in camera under a three-step test for discoverability of nonprivileged information.
- This case grants transfer to address whether the privilege can be applied to bar disclosure in a criminal prosecution.
- Court analyzes whether the privilege violates Fromme’s constitutional rights and, if so, whether weighing the privilege against the interests of justice supports disclosure.
- Court ultimately holds that the victim advocate privilege applies and does not violate constitutional rights, reversing and remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana’s victim advocate privilege bars disclosure. | Fromme argues privilege should yield to his defense needs. | Crisis Connection argues the privilege prohibits disclosure. | Privilege bars disclosure; no in camera review allowed. |
| Do the Confrontation/Compulsory Process/Due Process rights require disclosure? | Fromme claims rights to cross-examination and witnesses are violated if records aren’t disclosed. | State maintains privilege protects confidentiality and does not violate rights. | Rights not violated; privilege upheld under Ritchie framework. |
| Is an in camera review permissible for privileged records? | Fromme seeks in camera access to privileged records. | Privilege excludes disclosure even for in camera review. | In camera review not required or permitted for privileged material. |
| Does Brady or government possession affect the outcome? | Fromme posits potential exculpatory value of records under Brady. | Records are privileged and not in government possession, so Brady not triggered. | Brady concerns not implicated; privilege remains controlling. |
| Has Fromme waived any state constitutional argument? | Fromme raised constitutional claims under state provisions. | Arguments waived under Court of Appeals’ reasoning. | State constitutional argument waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (Confrontation/privilege balancing; court-ordered disclosure if material to defense may be required in some contexts)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (Due process obligation to disclose favorable material evidence in possession of the government)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1977) (No general constitutional right to discovery in criminal cases)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (Cross-examination context; contrasts with privilege confidentiality regimes)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (Confidential corporate communications privilege context supporting confidentiality interests)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1996) (Psychotherapist-patient privilege; confidentiality essential to therapy)