State v. Pierson

• Decision Date: 23 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. 13371,13371
• Citation: 546 A.2d 268,208 Conn. 683
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. David PIERSON.

Page 268

546 A.2d 268

208 Conn. 683

STATE of Connecticut v. David PIERSON.

No. 13371.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 10, 1988.

Decided Aug. 23, 1988.

Ronald E. Cassidento, West Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

Harry Weller, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Frank Iannotti, Former Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).

Before ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA, GLASS, COVELLO and SANTANIELLO, JJ.

SANTANIELLO, Justice.

This case is an appeal from a remand hearing ordered by this court in State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211, 514 A.2d 724 (1986). In that case, the defendant had sought at trial to examine the victim's psychiatric social worker to discover whether he had any information that the defendant could use to impeach the victim's credibility. At the trial court proceedings, the defendant had been denied permission to inquire about the treatment of the victim because such information was shielded from disclosure by the psychiatrist-patient privilege. ¹ On appeal, the defendant claimed that his sixth amendment right to confront the principal witness against him had been violated because he had been refused permission to pierce the psychiatric privilege in order to challenge the victim's credibility. This court agreed with the defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings, ordering that the trial court conduct a "voir dire" of the psychiatric social worker to determine whether he knew of any information that would call into question the victim's credibility.

In remanding the case for further proceedings, this court specifically delineated the procedure to be employed during the hearing: "This preliminary inquiry may be conducted only with the consent of the witness sought to be impeached, but, unless such consent is forthcoming, the testimony of the witness must be stricken. The voir dire for the purpose of determining the existence of such impeaching evidence must be conducted in the courtroom in the presence of the defendant and his counsel, who shall be allowed to participate fully in the proceedings.... [I]f no such [impeachment] evidence is discovered, the judgment of conviction must stand." State v. Pierson, supra, at 228-29, 514 A.2d 724.

Using the guidelines established by this court, the trial court upon remand conducted the required hearing. The victim did not appear. His attorney, however, did appear on his behalf and waived the psychiatrist-patient privilege. Counsel stated that he was waiving the privilege on behalf of the victim, that he was authorized to do so, and that the victim was aware of the implications of this waiver. There was no written authorization given to counsel. The defendant objected on the ground that, since the privilege was a personal and statutory one, the person entitled to exercise it needed to be present in court in order to waive it. This objection was overruled, and the trial court proceeded to a hearing on the issue of the contents of the psychological records as ordered by this court. The psychiatric social worker was thoroughly examined as to the testimonial capacity of the victim. At the completion of the hearing, the trial court ruled: "[T]here exists no significant evidence that would be admissible for purposes of impeachment." Consequently, the court allowed the defendant's conviction to remain intact in accordance with the direction of this court.

It is from the final ruling of the trial court that the defendant appeals claiming that the trial court erred in permitting the complaining witness to waive the psychiatric privilege, through counsel, without appearing personally before the court, in contravention of General Statutes § 52-146c. ² The state claims that the defendant lacks standing to challenge the victim's waiver of the psychiatric privilege especially when such waiver was demanded by the defendant to protect his right to confrontation.

We must first address the issue of the standing of the defendant to take this appeal. " 'Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion. One cannot rightfully invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he has, in an individual or representative capacity, some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.' " Ardmare Construction Co. v. Freedman, 191 Conn. 497, 501, 467 A.2d 674 (1983), quoting Hiland v. Ives, 28 Conn.Sup. 243, 245, 257 A.2d 822 (1966). The question of standing does not involve an inquiry into the merits of the case. It merely requires the party to make allegations of a colorable claim of injury to an interest which is arguably protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question. Assn. of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 830, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970); Ducharme v. Putnam, 161 Conn. 135, 139, 285 A.2d 318 (1971); State v. Rado, 14 Conn.App. 322, 325, 541 A.2d 124 (1988); Reitzer v. Board of Trustees of State Colleges, 2 Conn.App. 196, 199-200, 477 A.2d 129 (1984). "[A] defendant ordinarily lacks standing to challenge a grant of immunity to a witness who testifies against him. United States v. Foster, 478 F.2d 1001, 1003 (7th Cir.1973); State v. Melvin, 390 A.2d 1024, 1029 (Me.1978)." State v. Williams, 206 Conn. 203, 207, 536 A.2d 583 (1988).

In this case, the defendant sought relief from this court allowing him the opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatric social worker of the victim to ascertain whether the victim had the mental capacity to testify or whether there was anything in the psychiatric information which might allow the defendant to challenge the credibility of the testimony of the victim. As a result of the action of this court, this case was remanded setting forth strict guidelines as to the procedure to be followed in the examination of the psychiatric social worker. The victim-witness was required to give his consent to this examination or else his testimony would have been stricken. The "voir dire for the purpose of determining the existence of such impeaching evidence" was required to be conducted in a courtroom in the presence of the defendant and his counsel who would be allowed to participate fully in the proceedings. State v. Pierson, supra, 201 Conn. at 228, 514 A.2d 724. These strict guidelines were adhered to by the trial court. The defendant was granted the rights denied him at the original trial to discover whether the psychiatric social worker had information that might affect the credibility of the victim. The court's action in...