MAINESUPREMEJUDICIALCOURT ReporterofDecisions Decision: 2018ME56 Docket: Aro-16-569 Argued: September14,2017 Decided: April26,2018 Panel: SAUFLEY,C.J.,andALEXANDER,MEAD,GORMAN,JABAR,HJELM,andHUMPHREY,JJ. STATEOFMAINE v. GREGORYS.OLAH SAUFLEY,C.J. [¶1] Gregory S. Olah appeals from a judgment of conviction of gross sexual assault of a person under the age of fourteen (Class A), 17-A M.R.S.A. §253(1)(B)(Supp.2002),1andunlawfulsexualcontact(ClassC),17-AM.R.S.A. §255(1)(C), (2) (Supp. 2002),2 entered by the court (Aroostook County, Stewart,J.)afterajuryfoundhimguilty.Hechallengesthecourt’s(Hunter,J.) decisiontoquashhissubpoenasofmentalhealthrecordsoftheallegedvictim 1Title17-AM.R.S.A.§253(1)(B)(Supp.2002)wasamendedeffectiveJuly30,2004,thoughonly tomodifysyntaxtoaccommodateanadditionalparagraph(C).SeeP.L.2003,ch.711,§B-2(codified at17-AM.R.S.§253(1)(B),(C)(2017)). 2 A new statute was enacted to replace former 17-A M.R.S.A. § 255 (Supp. 2002), effective January31,2003.SeeP.L.2001,ch.383,§§22,23(codifiedassubsequentlyamendedat17-AM.R.S. §255-A(2017)).Althoughtheindictmentallegedthatthecrimesoccurredin2001andtheevidence showedconductoccurringintheautumnof2003,Olahdoesnotarguethathewaschargedunderthe wrongstatute.Moreover,insubstance,currentsection255-A(1)(E)isidenticaltoformersection 255(1)(C). 2 withoutfirstviewingtherecordsincamera,thecourt’sdenialofhismotionto suppress statements made to law enforcement, and the court’s (Stewart, J.) denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We discern no error in the court’srulingsoneitherthemotiontosuppressorthemotionforajudgment of acquittal, but we remand for the court to examine some or all of the requestedmentalhealthrecordsincamera. I.BACKGROUND [¶2] Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationallyhavefoundthefollowingfactsbeyondareasonabledoubt.SeeState v.Cummings,2017ME143,¶3,166A.3d996.Intheautumnof2003,Olah’s friend’ssix-year-olddaughterwassleepinginherbedroominPresqueIsle.She awoketofindthatOlahhadundressedherandwastouchinghergenitalswith hismouth.Laterthatday,Olahtookhertoplayatalocalpark.Olahthentook hertoanotherfriend’snearbyhome,wherehebathedherandbrieflyrubbeda towelbetweenherlegs.Afterthebath,thetwowereinthelivingroomwhen Olahremovedhiserectpenisfromhispants,hadthegirlcometohim,grabbed herhand,andmadehertouchhispenis. 3 [¶3]Inearly2014,thegirl,whowasstillaminor,toldhercounselorwhat hadhappened.Thecounselorreportedtheinformationtostateauthoritiesas amandatoryreporter.See22M.R.S.§4011-A(1)(A)(22),(2)(2017). [¶4]InSeptember2014,Olahwaschargedbycriminalcomplaintwith grosssexualassault(ClassA),17-AM.R.S.A.§253(1)(B),andunlawfulsexual contact(ClassC),17-AM.R.S.A.§255(1)(C),(2).Anindictmentforthesame charges was filed that November. The indictment alleged—based on the available evidence—that Olah had committed the crimes “[o]n or about betweenJuly1,2001andSeptember30,2001.”3 [¶5]InJune2015,Olahmovedtosuppressincriminatingstatementshe hadmadeduringapoliceinterview.Thecourt(Hunter,J.)heldahearingand deniedthemotiontosuppress,determiningthatOlahhadnotbeenincustody whenhemadethestatementsandthathehadspokentothepolicevoluntarily. [¶6] Before trial, Olah moved for the production of the child’s mental health records from the Aroostook Mental Health Center (AMHC) and the child’scounselor,whowasanemployeeofAMHC.Heassertedinthatmotion thattherecordswerenotconfidentialorprivilegedbecausethechildwaived 3“[I]fthevictimhadnotattainedtheageof16yearsatthetimeofthecrime,aprosecutionfor ...unlawfulsexualcontact...orgrosssexualassault...maybecommencedatanytime.”17-AM.R.S. §8(1)(2017). 4 anyprivilegebyvoluntarilydisclosingthecontentsofhercounselingwhenshe spokewithlawenforcementofficers.SeeM.R.Evid.510(a)(“Apersonwhohas aprivilegeundertheseruleswaivestheprivilegeiftheperson...whileholding the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to the disclosure of any significantpartoftheprivilegedmatter.”).Healsoassertedthatthecontents of the records would likely be admissible for impeachment purposes. The proposedsubpoenasrequested“[a]llcounselingrecordsof[thechild]and[the counselor]involvinganydiscussionofsexualabuse.” [¶7] The court entered an order on January 27, 2016, in which it determined that Olah had met the threshold requirements of relevancy, admissibility, and specificity to authorize the issuance of subpoenas and directed that subpoenas be served. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 17A(f). After being servedwithanoticetoproducerecords,AMHCandthecounselorobjectedto theproductionofdocumentsandmovedtoquashthesubpoenas,assertingthat thedocumentsrequestedwere, despite themandatoryreportofchildabuse, confidentialbystatuteandcouldnotbedisclosedevenforincamerareview.4 4 Neither AMHC nor the counselor asserted a claim of the privilege established in M.R. Evid.503(b)(1)and(d)(2). 5 See 22M.R.S. §1711-C (2017);5 34-BM.R.S. § 1207 (2017).6 Olah argued in oppositionthatthechildhadwaivedtheconfidentialityoftherecordsthrough herownstatementstolawenforcement,thatRule17A(f)allowsthecourtto requiretheproductionofotherwiseconfidentialmaterialforincamerareview andpossibledisclosuretothedefendant,andthatthematerialscanbeusedfor impeachment. [¶8]Thecourtgrantedthemotiontoquashwithouthavingviewedthe records in camera. It concluded that the child had not voluntarily waived confidentiality,eitherthroughherstatementstolawenforcementorthrough themandatedreportofhercounselor.Thecourtdistinguishedtheconfidential recordsofthecounselorfromthechild’sstatementstolawenforcement,which wereproperlythesubjectofdiscoveryand,totheextentappropriatepursuant totheRulesofEvidence,couldbeusedattrial.Itfurtherstatedthatitwas“not persuaded that its preliminary conclusion that the Defendant had met his threshold obligation to demonstrate relevance, admissibility and specificity necessarily leads to an obligation to produce the [counseling] records for in 5Recentamendmentsto22M.R.S.§1711-Cdonotaffecttheissuesraisedonappeal.SeeP.L. 2017,ch.203,§§2-4(effectiveNov.1,2017)(codifiedat22M.R.S.§1711-C(6)(S)-(U)(2017)). 6Recentamendmentsto34-BM.R.S.§1207(1)donotaffecttheissuesraisedonappeal.See,e.g., P.L.2017,ch.147,§§6,7(effectiveJune8,2017)(codifiedat34-BM.R.S.§1207(1)(B)(2017)). 6 camerareview.”ThecourtreasonedthatRule17Aanticipatesobjectionstothe subpoenaandthatthecourtmustthenconsider“whethertheclaimedprivilege shouldbehonoredornot.”Uponconsideringthatquestion,thecourtquashed thesubpoenasasmere“fishingexpeditions,”citingStatev.Watson,1999ME 41,¶¶6,7,726A.2d214,andStatev.Dube,2014ME43,¶¶8-10,87A.3d1219. [¶9]InNovember2016,almosttwoyearsaftertheindictment,7thecourt (Stewart,J.)heldatwo-dayjurytrial.Theevidencewasconflictingregarding the date when Olah had been present at the girl’s home. At the close of evidence,Olahmovedforajudgmentofacquittalonthegrosssexualassault chargebecausetheallegedvictimhadtestifiedthathereyeswereclosedwhen she felt the mouth on her genitals, and she therefore could not sufficiently identifyOlahasthepersonwhohadcommittedthatcrime.Thecourtdenied themotion.Olahdidnottestifyandofferednoadditionalevidence. [¶10]Initsclosingargument,theStatearguedthattheeventsprobably happenedwhentheallegedvictimwassixyearsoldinfall2003.Olahargued thattheindictment’sallegationofeventsin2001couldnotbeprovedandthat thediscrepanciescastreasonabledoubtonwhethertheeventshappenedatall. 7Therecorddoesnotcontainaspeedytrialdemand,anditappearsthatOlahwasnotincarcerated whileawaitingtrial. 7 [¶11] The court gave its final instructions to the jury, which returned guiltyverdictsonbothcounts.Olahthenmovedforajudgmentofacquittalon thegroundthattheevidencecouldnotestablishtheidentityofthepersonwho committed the assault in the bedroom and that the evidence presented and arguedbytheStatewasoutsidethescopeoftheindictment,whichprejudiced hisabilitytoprepareadefense. [¶12] The court heard arguments on Olah’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on December 2, 2016, and denied the motion with respect to identification because the girl testified about identifying features of her assailant,includingthedescriptionofhisfacialhair,thatwereconsistentwith only one person who was in the house at the time—Olah. The court further concludedthattherewassufficientevidencetosupporteachelementofeach count. The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals