Rogers v. State
| Decision Date | 06 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02–1508–CR–1033.,49A02–1508–CR–1033. |
| Citation | 60 N.E.3d 256 |
| Parties | James E. ROGERS, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jonathan C. Little, Saeed & Little, LLP, Susan D. Rayl, Smith Rayl Law Office, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Michael Ray Smith, Smith Rayl Law Office, LLC, Fishers, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Philip R. Zimmerly, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Shepherd Community, Inc. d/b/a Shepherd Community Center.
, Judge.
[1] During the pre-trial discovery phase of this criminal action, counsel for defendant James E. Rogers (“Rogers”) took the audio-taped statement of a woman named Amy Wallace (“Wallace”), and, during the questioning by Roger's counsel, Wallace's counsel directed Wallace not to answer four questions on the basis of counselor/client privilege. Rogers filed a motion to compel, seeking an order that Wallace be ordered to answer the questions, and the trial court denied the motion after a hearing. Rogers filed this interlocutory appeal and raises four issues that we consolidate and restate as: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Rogers's motion to compel on the basis that the information sought was privileged under Indiana Code section 25–23.6–6–1
.
[2] We reverse and remand.
[3] In August 2014, the State charged Rogers with two counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony intimidation, two counts of Class D felony child solicitation, and one count of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury.1 The charges stemmed from allegations made by B.L., Rogers's then-eight-year-old niece, after she was at Rogers's house for a sleepover with her younger sisters and cousins. The allegations generally were that during the night Rogers woke up B.L., forcibly grabbed her by the arm and removed her from the family room to the bathroom, forced B.L. to manually stimulate him, attempted to force her to fellate him, and threatened her with a knife. Rogers “steadfastly maintain[s]” that the allegations are “completely false.” Appellant's Br. at 2, 4.
[4] Shepherd Community, Inc. d/b/a Shepherd Community Center (“Shepherd”) is a faith-based, non-profit community center located on the near-eastside of Indianapolis that works with neighborhood youth and their families to break the cycle of poverty by providing programs and services to meet “the spiritual, physical, emotional, and academic needs of its neighbors.” Appellant's App. at 131. Shepherd is partnered with an academy known as the Horizon Christian School, which provides pre-k through fourth grade education.
[5] At some point in time prior to the present allegations against Rogers, the alleged victim, B.L., had been a student at Horizon Christian School. While preparing Rogers's defense and investigating the case, Rogers's counsel learned that individuals on the staff at Shepherd, including its pastor and chief executive officer Reverend Jay Height, had concerns that B.L.'s mother (“Mother”), at some prior time, may have been prostituting B.L. in exchange for receipt of drugs for Mother's own use. Rogers's counsel also learned there may have been one or more Department of Child Services (“DCS”) reports filed against B.L. or her parents that involved B.L.'s interaction with another child or children, either at home or at school. Given that B.L.'s accusations against Rogers reflected knowledge of sexual matters not ordinarily known to a child of her age, and because the alleged prior sexual interactions with others may have affected B.L.'s sexual knowledge, Rogers sought to further investigate those prior situations.
[6] As is relevant here, Rogers took the audio-recorded deposition2 of one of Shepherd's staff members, Wallace, who had provided social services support to B.L. and her family. Present for the deposition, in addition to Wallace, were 1) counsel for Rogers, 2) the prosecutor on behalf of the State, and 3) attorney Philip Zimmerly (“Zimmerly”) on behalf of Shepherd and Wallace. Among other things, Rogers sought information from Wallace regarding her knowledge of B.L.'s prior exposure to or involvement in matters of a sexual nature. Zimmerly objected and instructed Wallace not to answer the following four questions based on the counselor/client privilege found in Indiana Code section 25–23.6–6–1
:
[7] Rogers filed a Motion for Order Compelling Deponent to Answer Deposition Questions (“Motion to Compel”). Thereafter, Wallace's counsel filed a Non-Party Deponent's Opposition to Motion to Compel, and the State also filed a response, opposing Rogers's Motion to Compel. In May 2015, the trial court held a hearing on the matter, at which counsel presented argument. The trial court advised the parties that, in order to make a decision, it desired to receive further testimony, either live or by affidavit, about such matters as: how Shepherd “is set up,” Wallace's position at Shepherd and her relationship with B.L., and whether Wallace consults with other staff members. Tr. at 30
. Therefore, additional proceedings on the Motion to Compel were held in June 2015. Id. at 37.
[8] At that hearing, Wallace testified and identified her position at Shepherd as “Family Ministries Team Leader.” Id. at 38. Wallace holds a Bachelor's Degree in Social Work, but is not a licensed social worker. She testified that her primary responsibilities as Family Ministries Team Leader are to oversee the case management of various programs, such as home visits to teach parenting skills and food distribution through food pantries. She described, “The majority of what I do is the case management social work end of it,” but added that she does “some counseling with the families and children.” Id. at 40.
[9] When asked to further describe what she did in terms of counseling, Wallace stated that she provides direction to families and gives them options on how to address issues that arise, meeting with clients both in a one-on-one setting and in family settings. Wallace indicated that she considers those meetings confidential, but explained that, on occasion, she might share information with a Shepherd staff member if he or she “was directly involved” and had “a need to ... know.” Id. at 41. For instance, depending on the particular situation, Wallace might share information with a teacher at the Horizon Christian School. If faced with a situation where she had questions about whether it was appropriate to share information, Wallace testified that she would seek the instruction of her direct supervisor, Andrew Green (“Green”), who is a licensed social worker.
[10] As for her relationship with B.L. and her family, Wallace testified that she had worked with all of the family members in her capacity as Family Ministries Team Leader. When asked “Did you work with [B.L.] in a counseling setting?” Wallace replied, Id. at 45. She elaborated, Id. at 46. Other times, Wallace met with B.L. and her family during home visits, although some home visits occurred at times when only Mother was home. At one or more of those visits, Mother told Wallace about “some situations with another student.” Id. at 47. Wallace testified that she would have advised Mother that what she told Wallace was confidential. Id.
[11] Reverend Height, who is both the pastor and executive director of Shepherd, also testified. Reverend Height's recollection was that he only spoke with B.L. on occasions when her family was present and that he did not speak with her individually at any time. Reverend Height testified that, when speaking with the family, he would have advised them that they were speaking to him “as their pastor” and that what they told him would be confidential.4 Id. at 51–52. Upon questioning, Reverend Height acknowledged that sometimes Mother's friends were present when he talked with Mother or with the family. Id. at 56. He recalled that on one occasion he shared information he obtained during a pastoral visit with Wallace due to her role “as case manager for that family,” and he felt she needed to be aware of the information “for the safety of the children.” Id. at 52–53.
[12] The trial court took the matter under advisement, and after receiving additional authority from the parties, it issued an order in July 2015 denying Rogers's Motion to Compel. It stated:
The Court finds that communications within Amy Wallace's position as a “Family Ministries Team Leader” at Horizon Christian School at Shepherd Community Center are privileged under Indiana Code 25–23.6.
Id. at 65. Upon Rogers's request, the trial court certified the questions, and this court granted Rogers's request to file an interlocutory appeal.5
[13] Generally, the grant or denial of a discovery motion is within the trial court's discretion and will be overturned only for an abuse of discretion. Williams v. State, 819 N.E.2d 381, 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2004)
, trans. denied. An abuse of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. State
...a discovery motion is within the trial court's discretion and will be overturned only for an abuse of discretion. Rogers v. State , 60 N.E.3d 256, 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is against the logic and effect of the facts ......
-
Doe v. Purdue Univ.
...in order to fall within the scope of the counselor/client privilege found in Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1." Rogers v. State, 60 N.E.3d 256, 266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Addressing the question of "whether patient communications to a counselor who is supervised by a psychiatrist fall within......