Russell v. State, 8 Div. 960
Decision Date | 28 June 1988 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 960 |
Citation | 533 So.2d 725 |
Parties | Bennie Leroy RUSSELL v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joe M. Patterson, Jr., Florence, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth S. Nunnelley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Bennie Leroy Russell was convicted and sentenced to ninety-nine years' imprisonment for first degree rape and to a concurrent term of ten years' imprisonment for sexual abuse in the first degree. Russell raises three issues on this appeal from those convictions.
Russell argues that he was entitled to inspect the entire file of the Department of Human Resources (DHS) concerning the victim.
During the trial, the trial judge stated the relevant facts:
When it was later discovered during the course of the trial that the district attorney had records from the Department of Human Resources, the trial judge ordered that a copy be made of those records in the district attorney's possession and included in the record on appeal.
Russell was thirty-six years old at the time he raped and sexually abused the nine-year-old victim. Russell was the "boyfriend" of the child's mother.
Alabama Code 1975, § 26-14-8, provides, in part:
Although the statute lists eight exceptions to confidentiality, exception number (4) is the only one conceivably applicable to this case.
A similar issue was addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987). We find that case controlling.
Ritchie was charged with rape and other sexual offenses against a thirteen-year-old victim. He was not allowed to review or discover any of the files on the victim compiled by the state Children and Youth Services (CYS), a protective service agency charged with investigating cases of suspected mistreatment and neglect. By state law, those reports were confidential.
Ritchie alleged that his right to examine the full contents of the CYS records was required by the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In rejecting that claim, the court held:
Ritchie, 107 S.Ct. at 999 (emphasis and brackets in original) (footnote omitted).
The Supreme Court declined to determine whether or not Ritchie was entitled to inspect the entire CYS files under the Confrontation Clause concluding "that on these facts, Ritchie's claims more properly are considered by reference to due process." Ritchie, 107 S.Ct. at 1001.
Ritchie, 107 S.Ct. at 1001-02.
Like Alabama's § 26-14-8, the Pennsylvania statute did not grant absolute confidentiality but provided for disclosure in certain circumstances. Therefore, Ritchie was entitled to the disclosure of information material to his defense.
"...Ritchie is entitled to have the CYS file reviewed by the trial court to determine whether it contains information that probably would have changed the outcome of his trial." Ritchie, 107 S.Ct. at 1002.
Additionally, the Supreme Court held that Ritchie had no right to full disclosure or inspection of the confidential files and records of the child abuse agency.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. State
...II at 5. In Coats v. State, 615 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), this Court stated: "[U]nder our holdings in Russell v. State, 533 So.2d 725, 726-28 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), Cure v. State, 600 So.2d 415 (Ala.Cr.App.) (and cases cited therein at 418), cert. denied, 600 So.2d 421 (Ala.1992), and......
-
Nollins v. Superior Court (People)
...a trial right, both in terms of pretrial discovery (Ross v. State (Ala.Crim.App.1989) 555 So.2d 1179, 1180-1181; Russell v. State (Ala.Crim.App.1988) 533 So.2d 725, 726; People v. Exline (Colo.Ct.App.1988) 775 P.2d 48, 49; Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 805-806. fn. 18, 268......
-
Barber v. State
...("There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one").'" Russell v. State, 533 So.2d 725, 727-28 (Ala. Crim.App.1988) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 In this case, the appellant has alleged that......
-
Montez v. Superior Court (People)
...a trial right, both in . terms of pretrial discovery (Ross v. State (Ala.Crim.App.1989) 555 So.2d 1179, 1180-1181; Russell v. State (Ala.Crim.App.1988) 533 So.2d 725, 726; People v. Exline (Colo.Ct.App.1988) 775 P.2d 48, 49; Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 805-806, fn. 18, 2......