F.L. v. Court of Appeals
| Decision Date | 07 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20210411 |
| Parties | F.L., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, David M. Chadwick, and State of Utah, Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Paul Cassell, Heidi Nestel, Crystal C. Powell, Salt Lake City, for petitioner
Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., William M. Hains, Asst. Solic. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent State of Utah
Douglas J. Thompson, Provo, for respondent David Chadwick
Introduction
¶1 F.L. is the alleged victim of sex crimes charged against David M. Chadwick. In the district court proceedings below, Mr. Chadwick requested that the district court conduct an in camera review of F.L.’s therapy and counseling records and release specific categories of information relevant to his defense. The court granted Mr. Chadwick's request and conducted the review, after which it issued several orders quoting relevant excerpts from the records. The court then sealed the records. Mr. Chadwick proceeded to trial and was convicted of one count of sexual abuse of a child.
¶2 Mr. Chadwick appealed to the court of appeals and challenged the adequacy of the district court's in camera review. On its own motion, the court of appeals unsealed F.L.’s records and classified them as private, which allowed Mr. Chadwick's attorney to make extensive use of those records in his opening brief on appeal. In response, F.L. asked the court of appeals to reseal her records and strike all references to the confidential material in Mr. Chadwick's brief. That court granted F.L.’s request and instructed Mr. Chadwick to file a revised brief without references to the records.
¶3 Mr. Chadwick filed the revised brief as instructed, but he challenged the court of appeals’ decision to reseal F.L.’s therapy records, arguing the sealing order violated his rights. He asked that the court release those records to his attorney or, in the alternative, conduct a new in camera review of the records with an "advocate's eye." F.L. then moved to intervene in Mr. Chadwick's appeal as a limited-purpose party to assert her privacy interests.
¶4 The court of appeals construed F.L.’s motion to intervene as a motion to file an amicus brief under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 25, and it allowed her thirty days to file an amicus brief. F.L. then filed a petition for certiorari review with this court, which we denied because the court of appeals had not yet issued a final decision on Mr. Chadwick's appeal. We instead invited F.L. to file a petition for extraordinary relief. She did so, but she also filed a motion asking us to reconsider the denial of her certiorari petition. We deferred ruling on this motion for reconsideration and instructed the parties to brief the issue in conjunction with the briefing on F.L.’s petition for extraordinary relief.
¶5 We deny F.L.’s motion for reconsideration but grant her petition for extraordinary relief. Under the rules governing appellate procedure, we do not have jurisdiction to accept F.L.’s petition for certiorari because the court of appeals has not yet issued a final decision on Mr. Chadwick's appeal. We also reject F.L.’s argument that we should apply conventional standards of review to her petition for extraordinary relief. But we grant her request for extraordinary relief. The court of appeals made a mistake of law and so abused its discretion in not allowing F.L. to intervene as a limited-purpose party. Further, she has no other plain, speedy, and adequate avenue for relief. And because of the significance of the legal issue and the potential severe consequences of not allowing F.L. to be heard as a limited-purpose party, we exercise our discretion to grant relief. We accordingly reverse the court of appeals’ decision on F.L.’s motion to intervene and remand to allow her to participate as a limited-purpose party to assert her rights in her confidential therapy records.
¶6 In September 2016, the State charged Mr. Chadwick with four counts of sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony. F.L. is the alleged victim of these crimes. During the underlying criminal proceedings, Mr. Chadwick filed a motion asking the district court to conduct an in camera review of F.L.’s therapy and counseling records. Before the court ruled on the motion, the State stipulated that Mr. Chadwick was entitled to the in camera review under Utah law, and the parties submitted a stipulated order to that effect. The district court signed the order, which directed that the therapy records be released directly to the district court for in camera review. The order also stated that after the court reviewed the records, it would "disclose only those portions that contain a factual description of alleged abuse by Mr. Chadwick and circumstances surrounding those events, any report of those events by the counselor to law enforcement, and any methods used to refresh or enhance the memory of the alleged victim regarding those events." The order further provided that any information not provided to Mr. Chadwick would be sealed.
¶7 The district court conducted the in camera review in accordance with the stipulated order. It then issued several orders quoting excerpts from the records, but it did not release the records themselves. The case eventually went to trial, and the jury convicted Mr. Chadwick on one of the four counts of sexual abuse of a child. F.L. was not represented by legal counsel during Mr. Chadwick's criminal proceedings.
¶8 Mr. Chadwick appealed his conviction to the court of appeals and secured an order to transmit the sealed therapy records to that court. Then, on its own motion, the court of appeals unsealed and designated the records as private, which gave Mr. Chadwick's counsel access to them. Mr. Chadwick then filed an opening brief and argued that the district court's in camera review was inadequate. In making his arguments, Mr. Chadwick quoted extensively from the previously sealed documents.
¶9 The State responded to Mr. Chadwick's brief by filing a motion to reseal F.L.’s therapy records and strike the portions of Mr. Chadwick's brief citing those records. The court of appeals denied the State's motion.
¶10 F.L. then retained legal counsel and filed a motion similar to the State's, asking the court of appeals to reseal her therapy records and strike all portions of Mr. Chadwick's brief referencing those records. She also asked the court to publish an opinion on her motion. The court granted F.L.’s motion in part, resealing the records and ordering Mr. Chadwick to file a revised brief omitting all references to F.L.’s confidential records. But it denied F.L.’s request for a published opinion on the motion.
¶11 As ordered, Mr. Chadwick submitted a revised brief that redacted all references to F.L.’s therapy records, but he made two arguments regarding access to those records. First, he asked the court of appeals to reconsider its sealing order and designate the records as private, arguing the order violated his right to appeal, his right to due process, and his right to fundamental fairness. Second, and in the alternative, he asked the court to conduct its own in camera review of the records with an "advocate's eye."
¶12 F.L. responded by filing a motion to intervene as a limited-purpose party to protect the confidentiality of her therapy records, specifically stating that allowing her to file an amicus brief would not allow her to sufficiently protect her interests. The State supported F.L.’s motion. Mr. Chadwick opposed the motion by arguing F.L. did not have a right to intervene but could instead file an amicus brief.
¶13 The court of appeals, rather than denying F.L.’s motion to intervene, construed the motion as a request for leave to file an amicus curiae brief pursuant to rule 25 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. It then granted the construed motion and allowed F.L. thirty days to file an amicus brief.
¶14 F.L. then filed a petition for certiorari with this court, asking us to overrule the court of appeals’ decision on her motion to intervene. She also asked that we construe her request as a petition for extraordinary relief in the event we found that we did not have jurisdiction to accept her petition for certiorari. Relying on State v. Epling ,1 we declined to accept F.L.’s petition after determining that "[c]ertiorari review may be sought only from a final decision of the Court of Appeals." We also declined to construe the petition as a request for extraordinary relief because F.L. failed to frame the petition in terms of the criteria specified in rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, but we granted F.L. leave file a separate petition for extraordinary relief.
¶15 F.L. accepted our invitation to file a separate petition for extraordinary relief and, in conjunction with that filing, also submitted a motion asking us to reconsider our refusal to accept her petition for certiorari. We deferred ruling on the motion for reconsideration and instead invited the parties to brief the issue. We have jurisdiction to hear this case under Utah Code section 78A-3-102(2).
¶16 F.L. argues that although she has brought a petition for extraordinary relief, she is entitled to have us hear her petition for certiorari or, in the alternative, to have us review her extraordinary writ under the standard of review applicable to a conventional appeal. For reasons explained further below, we do not accept F.L.’s certiorari petition, and we decline to deviate from the standard of review applicable to petitions for extraordinary relief.
¶17 Rule 65B(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides the standard of review for extraordinary relief when the petitioner alleges a wrongful use of judicial authority. It states that "[w]here no other plain, speedy and adequate...
To continue reading
Request your trial