State v. Robert Burnham, 58 A.3d 889

Robert Burnham was indicted in 2006 on two counts of second-degree child molestation and one count of first-degree child molestation involving Jane, a 12-year-old, with incidents occurring between January and June 2006.
Pretrial subpoenas under Rule 17(c) sought Jane’s medical records, including Butler Hospital records; records were produced for in camera review but not actually reviewed by the motion justice, and defense counsel later reviewed some records.
At trial in February 2008, Jane testified about three incidents; a detective testified about the investigation and Burnham’s police interview following Miranda warnings; Burnham provided a written statement after two hours of questioning.
In May 2008, posttrial counsel sought a new trial alleging denial of pretrial access to Butler Hospital records and arguing these records contained potentially exculatory or impeachment-relevant material.
The trial court conducted a hearing, determined the defense had access to the Butler Hospital materials, and denied the motion for a new trial; Burnham was ultimately convicted on two counts and had the first-degree count dismissed.
On appeal, Burnham challenged (1) the new-trial denial based on access to hospital records, (2) the trial court’s jury instruction on voluntariness of his statement, and (3) the limiting of cross-examination of Jane.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the new-trial denial error for lack of pretrial access to records?	Burnham argues compulsory process/confrontation rights were violated by withholding Butler Hospital records.	Burnham contends the records were not reviewed in camera and thus not accessible, prejudicing his defense.	No reversible error; access was provided and no prejudice shown.
Did the court properly instruct on voluntariness of the police statement under humane practice?	Burnham argues the voluntariness instruction was incorrect.	Burnham asserts the jury instruction misstate the Humane Practice Rule.	Waived due to lack of objection; not reviewable on appeal.
Was cross-examination of Jane about prior sexual activity properly limited?	Burnham claims Rule 412/11-37-13 were violated by not allowing inquiry into prior sexual activity without proper notice.	State argues proper notice was required and not given; other permissible cross-examination conducted.	No abuse of discretion; proper notice was required and limits were appropriate.

State v. St. Michel, 37 A.3d 95 (R.I. 2012) (standard for reviewing Rule 33/new-trial decisions)
State v. Cerda, 957 A.2d 382 (R.I. 2008) (appellate review for new-trial motions)
State v. Sivo, 925 A.2d 901 (R.I. 2007) (jury instruction adequacy and prejudicial error standard)
State v. Wyche, 518 A.2d 907 (R.I. 1986) (due process and discovery obligations)
State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008) (deference to trial court on discovery issues; Brady framework)
State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735 (R.I. 2005) (discovery and evidentiary obligations; standards of review)
State v. Castellucci, 771 A.2d 902 (R.I. 2001) (prohibition on raising appeals not properly preserved)
State v. Rivera, 987 A.2d 887 (R.I. 2010) (Sixth Amendment confrontation and cross-examination limits)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (in-camera review and disclosure standards for evidence)
Dennis, 893 A.2d 250 (R.I. 2006) (Humane Practice Rule and voluntariness determinations)