State v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 23 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-35 September Term 2021,086317 |
| Citation | 252 N.J. 561,288 A.3d 12 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terrell M. CHAMBERS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Frank J. Ducoat, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Caroline C. Galda, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs, and Frank J. Ducoat, on the briefs).
Alexandra E. Macaluso argued the cause for respondent (Fusco & Macaluso, attorneys; Alexandra E. Macaluso and Giovanna Giampa, on the briefs).
Lila B. Leonard, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Lila B. Leonard, of counsel and on the brief).
Alyssa Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Public Defender of New Jersey (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Alyssa Aiello and Rachel A. Neckes, Legal Fellow, on the brief).
Aidan P. O'Connor, Hackensack, argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; Aidan P. O'Connor, on the brief).
Alexander Shalom, Newark, argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation and Rutgers Constitutional Rights Clinic Center for Law & Justice, attorneys; Alexander Shalom and Jeanne LoCicero, of counsel and on the brief, and Ronald K. Chen, on the brief).
In this case, we establish the procedural and analytical framework applicable to a defendant's good-faith discovery request for pre-incident mental health records from a sexual assault victim. The parties and amici agree generally that under certain circumstances, such records might be discoverable. And they acknowledge that an accused and a sexual assault victim each have important constitutional, statutory, and common law rights. But they disagree how to harmonize those discordant rights.
We do not expect that defendants will routinely make requests for mental health records of sexual assault victims. Such requests are and should remain rare. Here, defendant knew the victim and believed she suffered from a pre-incident mental illness that impaired her ability to accurately recall the alleged incident. This appeal requires that we balance a sexual assault victim's highly confidential and privileged communications and a defendant's important right to present a meaningful defense.
We hold that a heightened discovery standard governs a defendant's motion for pre-incident mental health records from a sexual assault victim. First, to be entitled to an in camera inspection of those records, a defendant must preliminarily demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) a substantial, particularized need for the records; (2) that the alleged mental illness is both relevant and material to a victim's ability to perceive, recall, or recount the alleged assault, or a proclivity to imagine or fabricate it; and (3) that the information sought cannot be obtained through less intrusive means. Second, if a defendant satisfies that heavy preliminary burden after appropriate notice to the victim as we later describe, the judge must conduct an in camera inspection and determine whether to "pierce" the privilege, redact the records, and produce them under a protective order. In addition to that standard applicable to a formally filed motion, we outline a less formal process through which defendants may make requests for discovery of the pre-incident mental health records of an alleged sexual assault victim by letter to the prosecutor's office.
Because we are announcing a new procedural and analytical framework applicable to a defendant's request for such records, we vacate the order directing the State to produce the victim's purported records; we vacate the order denying the State's motion for reconsideration; and we remand for the parties to supplement the record and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The case comes to us in the early discovery stage. The trial record contains police and forensic reports, as well as statements from various individuals. We summarize the pretrial factual allegations that the judge considered, understanding that the State will be left to its proofs at trial. The alleged incident occurred at the residence of defendant Terrell Chambers's sister (the sister).1 Defendant and the victim are cousins, and defendant, the victim, and the witnesses were well acquainted.
The victim and the sister are in their early thirties. Although they had been very close since childhood, the sister stated that she and the victim were "kinda ... separated" at the time of the alleged offense because of some recent "family drama." Defendant was twenty-seven years old and training to be a police officer. According to defendant and his sister, the victim allegedly previously pursued a similar career interest in law enforcement.
In the late afternoon on Saturday, October 13, 2018, multiple people gathered at the sister's home. Those in attendance included the victim and her nine-year-old daughter; the sister's boyfriend and his children; the sister's infant daughter; defendant; defendant's girlfriend; and defendant's friend. The sister, who was breastfeeding her infant child, consumed no alcohol that night. The victim and defendant stayed at the residence overnight because they were inebriated. Their own statements to detectives reflect that they spent the night in the sister's living room, either on the same couch or on different but nearby couches.
The victim alleges that she woke up to defendant performing cunnilingus on her. She pushed him away but was unable to get up because of her state of inebriation. According to the victim, defendant repeated the sexual assault approximately three more times that night. Each time he allegedly did so she protested by pushing him away.
A few days later, the victim contacted her best friend (the best friend), who was not there the night of the alleged assault. The victim texted her the following message:
A few nights ago, I was raped by a relative. I'm [f*****] up right now and have no one else to talk to about this. ... I just spoke with you about giving up the other day and it's getting real for me right now. I can't really talk about it to anyone, but, if something were to happen to me, I need someone to know the facts on why anything happened. Why the [f***] [has] this [s***] happened to me. I have lost all faith in God because this is beyond making me a stronger person. I am broken right now[,] and I am now in a very dark place. I hate my life right now. Why has this happened to me, why? That night continues to play in my head. I want it to go away. Since then, I've been crying. Not a clue what to do. I do not want to tell my family. I do not know what to do. I love you so much, I really do. I'm sorry for pulling you into this, but, I need for someone to know.
The best friend immediately called her. Six days after the incident, the victim sat down with her parents, her sister, her brother, a family friend who worked in law enforcement, and the best friend, and explained to them what allegedly happened during the evening in question. They encouraged her to report the incident to the police, and the next day the victim gave a statement to the Prosecutor's Office. At that time, she produced for forensic testing the underwear she wore that night.
Approximately two days later, the victim participated in a consensual intercept telephone call, arranged by detectives, between her and defendant. On the call, the victim asked defendant, "Yo, Sunday, why'd you do what you did, yo?" Defendant asked, "[w]hat'd I do Sunday?" then told her he would call her right back. Defendant then sent a text message saying, Fifteen minutes later, he texted her saying, "I'm at the uniform place getting fitted for my bulletproof vest." The victim responded by saying, "just step out and give me a minute because I need an apology from you and why you did it."
When defendant called her back, she asked him, "you literally sat there and [performed cunnilingus], ... why would you do that?" Defendant said, "I was blacked out, I don't even remember ... too much." He continued denying any wrongdoing saying he did not "even remember how [he] got home" because he "was blacked out, blacked out, blacked out." He said, "I'm sorry, I swear to God, I apologize -- I'm apologizing to you, if I did, I'm so sorry." Defendant told the victim, "honestly, I don't even remember." He eventually stated, "I'm apologizing ... I'll kill myself right now ... do you want me to kill myself, I will do it ... I know you hate me, you'll never have to see me again, I promise." He added, "I was blacked out." In response to her repeated questions about whether defendant performed oral sex on her, defendant finally responded "yeah ... I answered you, yes." After defendant's admission, the victim asked if he was sorry, and defendant then stated, Defendant went on to say, Defendant begged the victim not to tell the sister, and to give him some time so that he could tell the sister himself.
The police then took statements from defendant, the sister, and the sister's boyfriend. In their statements, they all vaguely alluded to the victim's alleged mental health history. The sister also told the police that she learned from defendant's girlfriend about the victim's alleged failure to become a police officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial