Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-1107 criminalCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA .: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : : GARRY W. BOLTON : NO. 98-1107 CRIMINAL TERM : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS BEFORE GUI DO, J. AND NOW, this ORDER day of FEBRUARY, 1999, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, Defendant's request for access to the Stevens Mental Health Center records regarding treatment of the complaining witness is DENIED. By the Edward E. Guido, J. District Attorney Carl C. Risch, Esquire For the Stevens Center Paul B. Orr, Esquire Ruby D. Weeks, Esquire York Co. Children & Youth Services Lancaster Co. Children & Youth Services COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : : GARRY W. BOLTON : NO. 98-1107 CRIMINAL TERM : : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S REOUEST FOR ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS BEFORE GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT On January 5, 1999 the Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Production of Children and Youth Material. Included in the motion was a request that Stevens Mental Health Center provide Defendant access to its "files pertaining to the investigation of the alleged abuse of the complaining witness .... "On February 10, 1999 an agreed upon order was issued to resolve the matter as it related to the various Children Services organizations. Stevens Mental Health Center has strongly opposed the Defendant's request for access to its files. Both parties have filed briefs. For the reasons hereinafter set forth we are compelled to deny Defendant's request as it relates to the Stevens Mental Health Center files. DISCUSSION The parties have agreed that Stevens Mental Health Center (hereinafter Stevens) is a community mental health center which is subject to the provisions of the Mental Health Procedures Act. (50 P.S. § 7101 et seq.). Stevens argues that it is precluded by NO. 98-1107 CRIMINAL TERM the act from releasing any portion of its file to the Defendant without the consent of the complaining witness. ~ Section 111 of the act provides in relevant part as follows: 7111. Confidentiality of records (a) Ail documents concerning persons in treatment shall be kept confidential and, without the person's written consent, may not be released or their contents disclosed to anyone except: (1) 'those engaged in providing treatment for the person; (2) the county administrator, pursuant to section 110, (3) a court in the course of legal proceedings authorized by this act; and (4) pursuant to Federal rules, statues and regulations governing disclosure of patient information where treatment is undertaken in a Federal agency. 50 P.S. § 7111. (emphasis added) The Defendant argues that, notwithstanding the above statute, he has a Sixth Amendment right to examine the files in order to obtain information to impeach the complaining witness. In support of his argument he has referred us to the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Com. v. Ritchie, 509 Pa. 357, 502 A.2d 148 (1985). The Ritchie Court was faced with a statute that made confidential all children services agency records relating to child abuse. It held that such records must be made available to a criminal defendant accused of child abuse. It reasoned that failure to provide the records would amount to a ~Stevens is not in possession of any such consent signed in favor of either the Commonwealth or the Defendant. NO. 98-1107 CRIMINAL TERM violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United Stated Constitution. The Court went on to state that the right to confrontation includes the right to cross-examine. It further held that an essential part of cross examination is the ability to impeach or discredit the testimony of the witness. The Defendant's reliance on Ritchie is misplaced. The United States Supreme Court specifically rejected that portion of the Ritchie decision relied upon by the Defendant. It held that the pretrial refusal to disclose privileged information that might be used at trial to impeach or undermine a witness's testimony was not violative of the Sixth /Mnendment. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 94 L.Ed 2d 40, 107 S.Ct. 989 (1987). As Mr. Justice Powell noted: If we were to accept this broad interpretation ... the effect would be to transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery. Nothing in the case law supports such a view. The opinions of this Court show that the right to confrontation is a trial right, designed to prevent improper restrictions on the types of questions that defense counsel may ask during cross-examination. (citations omitted) The ability to question adverse witnesses, however, does not include the power to require the pretrial disclosure of any and all information that might be useful in contradicting unfavorable testimony. 480 U.S. at 52-53, 94 L.Ed.2d at 54, 1075 S.Ct. at 1003. Clearly the Sixth Amendment does not require us to ignore Section 111 of the Mental Health Procedures Act. The question then becomes whether this request falls within one of the exceptions to the statute. We are satisfied that it NO. 98-1107 CRIMINAL TERM does not.2 Therefore, Defendant's request must be denied. ORDER AND NOW, this 19TH day of FEBRUARY, 1999, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, Defendant's request for access to the Stevens Mental Health Center records regarding treatment of the complaining witness is DENIED. By the Court, /s/ Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J District Attorney Carl C. Risch, Esquire For the Stevens Center Paul B. Orr, Esquire Ruby D. Weeks, Esquire York Co. Children & Youth Services Lancaster Co. Children & Youth Services :sld 2The only exception that might be even remotely construed to apply is contained in Section Ill(a)(3) which provides that the records may be released to "a court in the course of legal proceedings authorized by this act." 50 P.S. § 7111(a)(3). However, our Superior Court in Com. v. Moyer, 407 Pa. Super. 336, 595 A.2d 1177 (1991), specifically held that a criminal prosecution is not a legal proceeding authorized by the act.