State v. Tubbs, (AC 17718)

• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut
• Citation: 52 Conn. App. 636,727 A.2d 776
• Decision Date: 13 April 1999
• Docket Number: (AC 17718)
• Parties: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DAVID PALMER TUBBS

52 Conn. App. 636
727 A.2d 776

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
DAVID PALMER TUBBS

(AC 17718)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued January 22, 1999.

Officially released April 13, 1999.

O'Connell, C. J., and Lavery and Spallone, JS.

52 Conn. App. 637

Denise B. Smoker, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin Kane, state's attorney, and Theresa Ferryman, assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state)

William S. Palmieri, with whom, on the brief, was John Williams, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

SPALLONE, J.

The state appeals from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the trial court. The state claims that the trial court improperly refused to allow the state to offer the victim's testimony for the sole purpose of perfecting the record on appeal and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the wholesale disclosure of the victim's psychiatric records, some of which, as the court itself conceded, were remote in time.

A review of the record, transcripts and briefs discloses that the defendant, David Palmer Tubbs, was

52 Conn. App. 638

charged with two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a¹ and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21. The state alleged that the defendant on two separate occasions improperly touched the victim, a twelve year old boy. Both incidents were alleged to have occurred in the shower room at the Mystic Community Center

Prior to trial, the defendant moved for disclosure of the victim's psychiatric records. The state agreed to subpoena the records to the trial court. Three agencies provided records to the court pursuant to the state's subpoena, the Child and Family Agency, the Lawrence and Memorial Hospital and the Groton public school system. These records remained under seal and unopened until September 22, 1997, when the victim's mother consented to the court's in camera review of

52 Conn. App. 639

the records to determine which, if any, should be disclosed to the defendant

On September 29, 1997, the state informed the trial court that the victim's mother refused to consent to the proposed disclosure. The state indicated that the disclosure ordered by the court was overbroad and it requested a continuance to confer with the victim's mother.

On October 1, 1997, the state filed a written motion asking the trial court to reconsider its wholesale disclosure of the minor victim's psychiatric records. The trial court affirmed its prior ruling, stating: "The court will state for the record that the material that it ordered to be disclosed were materials that the court found to be especially probative of the complainant's ability to comprehend, to know and correctly relate the truth.

"The court also believes that the materials, although some of them being remote in time, that all of the materials that the court ordered be disclosed to the defense counsel were materials that the court felt were relevant to the issues of the victim's ability to relate the truth—to know the truth, to understand the truth and to relate it.

"The court continues to feel that the materials it ordered to be made available to defendant's counsel do indeed reflect or have the potential to reflect on the credibility of the complainant's accusations against the defendant in this case. So the court has reconsidered your request and the court's original position is maintained."

The state also asked permission to call the victim to the witness stand so that it could "create a record of what [his] testimony would actually be in order for the Appellate Court to evaluate the necessity for the [proposed] disclosure ... against what the victim

52 Conn. App. 640

actually testifies to, so [that] it could evaluate what was necessary for cross-examination purposes and exculpatory purposes."

After the trial court denied this request, the state moved for dismissal and for the resealing of the victim's psychiatric records. Thereupon, the court dismissed the case, ordered the records resealed and granted the state permission to appeal.

I

The state first claims that the trial court improperly refused to allow the state to offer the victim's testimony for the sole purpose of perfecting...