Ricky Russell Marshall, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/26/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-0263 Ricky Russell Marshall v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal JOINER, Court Marshall of discharging Judge. Ricky firearm from T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t (CC-06-3642) Russell into an o c c u p i e d was c o n v i c t e d building, a violation a o f § 13A-11- 6 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r , a v i o l a t i o n o f §§ 13A-4-2 court and 13A-6-2, A l a . Code 1975. The c i r c u i t CR-09-0263 sentenced Marshall to 16 years' imprisonment discharging-a-firearm-into-an-occupied-building and to 20 years' conviction. to pay count a trial, crime court w h i c h was Because the victims costs. This does a brief and Virginia ("Marshall's V i r g i n i a married with their February 2006, messages on o u t " and "I'm 10:30 the p.m., news asleep. Billy C o o k was As the are of Cook, and children On rest of and machine Cook w a t c h e d t h e living the Marshall's s e n t e n c e s were d e a d l y - w e a p o n enhancement i n §§ Code 1975. 2 on for each a new sufficiency facts will and from Marshall, Marshall's child. Cook 2006, at was in child i n a home i n house telling family suffice. one lived Cook's of have In and left to "look approximately room of h i s house n e w s , he 1 the couple F e b r u a r y 24, i n the motion divorce telephoned answering a divorced the Marshall followed. the her attempted-murder assessment challenge After two coming." while Cook Marshall Cook's not the conviction, court ordered filed appeal recitation child"). Vance, the compensation Marshall denied. Marshall evidence, Marshall on A d d i t i o n a l l y , the c i r c u i t 1 $50 and imprisonment on watching their rooms heard a v e h i c l e stop in enhanced p u r s u a n t t o the 1 3 A - 5 - 6 ( 4 ) and - 6 ( 5 ) , A l a . CR-09-0263 front of h i s house. C o o k w a l k e d t o t h e f r o n t d o o r t o s e e why t h e v e h i c l e h a d s t o p p e d , a n d he saw M a r s h a l l door with against a gun. the door, inside Cook then Marshall closed the door, to prevent and t r i e d t h e home. Marshall fired telephone though the police contacted the Department that Cook claimed that on approximately because 2:00 of i t denied process The a Marshall's 24, 2006, a.m. then a and record subpoena Virginia -- 2006, ("DHR") child. he friend him access until him home held erred by t h e T u s c a l o o s a i t v i o l a t e d h i s " S i x t h Amendment [ h i s ] right (Marshall's indicates that, before to the Tuscaloosa and Marshall worked drove he at the time. to records h i s accusers." even left. contends that the c i r c u i t court r i g h t s by l i m i t i n g cross-examine rounds 15, Resources February Marshall coming then February Human abusing C o u n t y DHR, b e c a u s e , he s a y s , due on h i s v e h i c l e was i n o p e r a b l e On a p p e a l , when was that Marshall down from and t o " g e t t h e s h o t g u n " testified reported knelt Cook y e l l e d f o r C o o k d i d n o t own a s h o t g u n . Marshall up t o t h e seven approximately through t h e door and i n t o t h e house. to walking County 3 brief, trial, DHR to confront and p. 9 ) . Marshall requesting issued "any and CR-09-0263 all documents and records as child]." DHR subsequently requesting that the c i r c u i t or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , requested DHR contained evidence subsequently protective requested moved court pertain for a quash to determine [Marshall's protective Marshall's whether material to the case. the to denied to order subpoena c o n d u c t an i n c a m e r a i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e documents order they motion The quash those records circuit but granted trial the f o l l o w i n g exchange occurred: "[The Court]: .... [ W ] h a t i s i t t h a t you're s e e k i n g t o g e t f r o m t h e DHR f i l e , b e c a u s e t h a t h e l p s me n a r r o w down a s t o w h e t h e r I o r d e r t h e m t o p r o d u c e something or not. "[Marshall's counsel]: Ultimately, what I'm l o o k i n g f o r i s t h e r e p o r t b y [ M a r s h a l l ] t h a t he made t o DHR a b o u t [ C o o k ] o n F e b r u a r y [ 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ] . " (R. 26-27.) Later, the a n d c o n d u c t e d an i n c a m e r a i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e documents. Before court the court stated: "Now, I h a v e a p a c k e t o f DHR r e c o r d s t h a t was b r o u g h t t o me j u s t m o m e n t s a g o , a n d I'm g o i n g t o b e l o o k i n g t h r o u g h t h a t a s we go t h r o u g h t h e o p e n i n g statements to t r y to expedite the request of [Marshall]. Specifically, there was allegedly i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m on o r a b o u t F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , t h a t [Marshall] i s seeking to discover i n that material. I w i l l t r y to i d e n t i f y that quickly, i f possible, 4 CR-09-0263 a n d t h e n g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n t o be p r o d u c e d o r n o t . o f whether i t ' s going "Now, I d o n ' t k n o w t h e c a s e , o b v i o u s l y , s o e v e n if I d i d not produce t h e document I'm not n e c e s s a r i l y saying the information i s not admissible under some other theory, so d o n ' t hesitate to c o r r e c t me i f I make t o o b r o a d a r u l i n g i n t h e c a s e , b e c a u s e I'm t r y i n g t o s a y I n e e d t o r u l e on w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e DHR r e c o r d i n a n d o f i t s e l f g e t s p r o d u c e d to the defense. T h a t may o r may n o t b e i n d i c a t i v e of whether or not [Marshall] could introduce other i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g some r e p o r t s , i f t h a t b e c a m e pertinent i n the case." (R. 130-31.) documents, After the circuit the f o l l o w i n g exchange court reviewed the occurred: " [ T h e C o u r t ] : W h i l e we a r e o u t s i d e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e j u r y , l e t me s a y t h a t I h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e d o c u m e n t s t h a t came t o me f r o m t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s . "And I reviewed each page. "I guess t h e q u e s t i o n I need t o a s k a g a i n i s what w o u l d t h e D e f e n s e want f r o m t h e p a c k e t ? And I say t h a t b e c a u s e , a g a i n , I have an o b l i g a t i o n n o t t o turn over sensitive, confidential Department o f Human R e s o u r c e d o c u m e n t s . It certainly w o u l d be e a s i e r t o do s o , b u t t h a t ' s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h my o b l i g a t i o n and duty. " I t h i n k I'm f a m i l i a r e n o u g h w i t h w h a t ' s i n t h e r e . J u s t t o make a m o r e i n f o r m e d r u l i n g , y o u m e n t i o n e d y e s t e r d a y t h a t what you were l o o k i n g f o r was a r e p o r t made b y [ M a r s h a l l ] t o [DHR] on o r about, i f I r e c a l l , F e b r u a r y 1 4 t h o r 1 5 t h o f 2006, something i n that range t h e r e . 5 DHR CR-09-0263 "[Marshall's counsel]: Correct. "[The C o u r t ] : And I w i l l s a y , c e r t a i n l y t h e r e i s s u c h an i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e m a t e r i a l b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s . The q u e s t i o n that I have, I g u e s s , i s : The f a c t t h a t a r e p o r t was m a d e , a s I understood our discussions yesterday about p o t e n t i a l l y why t h e D e f e n s e w o u l d w a n t t o i n t r o d u c e t h a t , w o u l d be f o r c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e a l l e g e d v i c t i m in the case, that i s to s a y , that the alleged victim--would be i n r e t a l i a t i o n f o r h a v i n g filed s o m e t h i n g w i t h D H R , made u p t h i s s t o r y , b e c a u s e t h e defense i s i tdidn't happen, r i g h t ? " [ M a r s h a l l ' s c o u n s e l ] : W e l l , we're n o t s a y i n g t h a t t h e s h o t s w e r e n ' t f i r e d . What I'm s a y i n g i s my c l i e n t d i d n ' t do i t . "[The Court]: Right. E x c u s e me. I b e g y o u r p a r d o n . A n d t h a t ' s e x a c t l y r i g h t , a n d I d o n ' t mean t o - - a n d I'm n o t m e a n i n g t o l i m i t any defense t h a t ' s g o i n g t o be p u t o n , e i t h e r . I j u s t have t o articulate f o r the record and a l s o f r o m my own j u d g m e n t as t o what I w o u l d be p r o d u c i n g , b e c a u s e I g u e s s I am s o m e w h a t h e s i t a n t t o t u r n o v e r a DHR r e c o r d t h a t h a s l o t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n i t t h a t may need t o be r e d a c t e d i n c e r t a i n a r e a s as opposed t o s i m p l y an a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f t h e f a c t t h a t s u c h a r e p o r t was made i n t h e c a s e . "[Marshall's counsel]: Well, there's "[The C o u r t ] : So h e l p me u n d e r s t a n d s h o u l d make a r u l i n g on i n t h e c a s e . what I "[Marshall's counsel]: Well, I believe h i s f i l e i s q u i t e e x t e n s i v e a n d he h a s q u i t e a h i s t o r y , b u t what we're r e a l l y l o o k i n g f o r i s t h a t [Marshall's c h i l d ] l e f t h i s home o r l e f t t h e r e s i d e n c e o f [ C o o k ] and [ V i r g i n i a ] on o r a b o u t D e c e m b e r t h e 2 n d , 2 0 0 5 . He w r o t e a l e t t e r a l l e g i n g a b u s e b y [ C o o k ] a n d h i s 6 CR-09-0263 w i f e V i r g i n i a , a n d I b e l i e v e t h a t g o t b a c k t o my c l i e n t a n d my c l i e n t w e n t t o DHR a n d r e p o r t e d t h a t . And i t ' s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g i t w a s , l i k e y o u s a i d , sometime around F e b r u a r y t h e 1 5 t h . " I am n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n a n y o f t h e r e c o r d s p r i o r t o December t h e 2nd, 2005. I t h i n k t h e y ' r e quite e x t e n s i v e , a n d I'm p r o b a b l y a w a r e o f m o s t o f t h e m . But I don't t h i n k t h a t those a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s case. I t h i n k what's p e r t i n e n t i s t h e r e p o r t o f t h e abuse b y [Cook] and V i r g i n i a t o [ M a r s h a l l ' s child]. "[The C o u r t ] : W e l l , and I w i l l j u s t n o t e f o r t h e record i n an i n c h thick of documents, there's c e r t a i n l y many t h i n g s t h a t we w o n ' t g e t a n y - - w e ' r e not e v e n g o i n g t o come n e a r i n t r o d u c i n g t h e DHR r e c o r d s i n t h i s c a s e . The q u e s t i o n b e c o m e s , t h o u g h , i s t h a t t h e Defense wants t o i n t r o d u c e t h e f a c t t h a t [ M a r s h a l l ] made a c o m p l a i n t t o DHR a b o u t [Marshall's c h i l d ] a n d t h a t t h a t c o m p l a i n t was k n o w n t o [ C o o k ] . What w o u l d b e t h e - fl " [ T h e C o u r t ] : So i s i t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s i s i t the defendant's p o s i t i o n or claim that [Cook]'s credibility i s at issue because o f t h e DHR -¬ because he made this up b e c a u s e he h a d a DHR complaint f i l e d against him? fl "[Marshall's counsel]: Yes, s i r . Yes, s i r . "[The Court]: A n d I'm n o t s a y i n g that does a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n h e l p s me s t r e a m l i n e my f o c u s o f w h a t I n e e d t o make a r u l i n g o n . So w e ' l l c l o s e o u t the r e c o r d and l e t you t a l k . "(Off record.) 7 CR-09-0263 " [ T h e C o u r t ] : C a n I go b a c k o n t h e r e c o r d f o r a moment? A n d y o u c a n s t a y s e a t e d . I'm j u s t g o i n g t o make s u r e I p u t my t h o u g h t p r o c e s s on t h e r e c o r d s o t h a t i t c a n be c o r r e c t e d b y y o u i n a few moments o r at least explained about what my t h i n k i n g and r a t i o n a l e i s about t h i s i s s u e . "We h a v e a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s i s always f o r t h e j u r y t o d e t e r m i n e , and t h e e v i d e n c e l a w e n c o u r a g e s e v i d e n c e t o come i n t h a t g o e s t o c r e d i b i l i t y o n l y o f a w i t n e s s . A n d we k n o w that the evidence law favors that and tends t o encourage the i n t r o d u c t i o n of evidence, i f it's available, that would go to credibility of witnesses. Once a g a i n , i t ' s not f o r the Court to make t h a t j u d g m e n t ; i t w o u l d b e f o r t h e j u r y . "So we h a v e a s i t u a t i o n where c o n f i d e n t i a l records are d e l i v e r e d to the Court i n response to a subpoena t h a t a r e p r o t e c t e d by v a r i o u s p r i v i l e g e s and rightly so a n d I h a v e t o make a p r o p e r b a l a n c i n g a n a l y s i s o f whether o r not any o f those d o c u m e n t s a r e p r o d u c e d t o one s i d e o r t h e o t h e r , f o r a v a r i e t y o f r e a s o n s . One r e a s o n i n p a r t i c u l a r i s t h a t you c e r t a i n l y want t o e n c o u r a g e f r e e exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n and f r e e r e p o r t i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s , a n d i t c h i l l s t h a t o r i t t h w a r t s t h a t i f we j u s t t u r n o v e r t h o s e records, b e c a u s e many a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t a r e made p r o v e t o b e s u b s t a n t i a t e d . M a n y a l l e g a t i o n s a r e made that result i n investigations being conducted, interviews being conducted with children, in p a r t i c u l a r , where t h e c h i l d r e n have t o be e n c o u r a g e d to speak f r e e l y and f r a n k l y and f o r t h r i g h t l y with t h e i n t e r v i e w i n g p a r t i e s . So, t h e r e f o r e , I h a v e an a b s o l u t e o b l i g a t i o n t o ensure t h a t those documents are not l a t e r produced i n t o p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t could thwart or c h i l l that b e n e f i c i a l purpose of the privilege. 8 CR-09-0263 "Now, in this would have access [prosecutor]? "[Prosecutor]: "[The Court]: "[Marshall's particular to these Yes, case, neither side documents. Correct, sir. Correct, counsel]: [Marshall's Yes, counsel]? sir. "[The C o u r t ] : A l l r i g h t . So I h a v e t o b a l a n c e the various interests involved with this observation: The witness [Cook] testified on cross-examination i n response to t h i s q u e s t i o n , 'Did DHR contact you on February 15th o f 200 6 ? ' The witness answered -and this is a rough t r a n s c r i p t i o n , b y t h e way, i n d e f e r e n c e to the c o u r t r e p o r t e r , who on v e r y s h o r t n o t i c e h a s helped me prepare something. " T h i s may n o t - - s u b j e c t t o h e r m a k i n g s u r e t h i s i s e x a c t , t h e w i t n e s s s a i d , 'Not t o my k n o w l e d g e . I don't have a r e c o l l e c t i o n of i t ' or words to t h a t effect. " A n d t h e n t h e q u e s t i o n a g a i n was, 'You h a v e no r e c o l l e c t i o n o f DHR c a l l i n g y o u a b o u t [Marshall's c h i l d ] on F e b r u a r y t h e 1 5 t h ? ' 'No, s i r . ' "Now, I w i l l say t h a t t h e r e are documents i n the DHR files that do not contradict that. Let me r e p h r a s e what I j u s t s a i d , b e c a u s e t h a t ' s a very inappropriate s e n t e n c e . T h e r e a r e no d o c u m e n t s i n t h e DHR r e c o r d s t h a t w o u l d p r o v e t h a t DHR contacted h i m on F e b r u a r y 1 5 t h o f 2 0 0 6 . Now, I ' l l point out t h a t I u n d e r s t o o d t h e w i t n e s s ' s t e s t i m o n y t o be 'not t o my k n o w l e d g e , n o t t o my r e c o l l e c t i o n , ' so I d o n ' t know t h a t y o u c a n s a y t h a t was a d e n i a l o f i t . B u t I w i l l s a y t h a t t h e r e a r e no d o c u m e n t s t h e r e that w o u l d show t h a t DHR c o n t a c t e d h i m on F e b r u a r y 1 5 t h , 2 0 0 6 a b o u t [ M a r s h a l l ' s c h i l d ] , so I ' v e f o u n d n o t h i n g t h a t w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t t o be t h e c a s e . 9 CR-09-0263 "I w i l l say t h a t t h e r e are documents i n d i c a t i n g that shortly thereafter he was contacted about [ M a r s h a l l ' s c h i l d ] and a b o u t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t [ M a r s h a l l ' s c h i l d ] made. I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t t h a t ' s the q u e s t i o n asked, but i n f a i r n e s s to the Defense, t h e D e f e n s e w o u l d n o t know t h a t . T h a t i s t o s a y , you would not have a c c e s s to the r e c o r d s or i n f o r m a t i o n there about the case. "So t h e r e a s o n t h a t I'm m a k i n g t h e observation i n t h o s e t e r m s i s one a p p r o a c h t o t h i s w o u l d be t o a l l o w the D e f e n s e t o h a v e an interview that was c o n d u c t e d w i t h [Cook] s h o r t l y a f t e r F e b r u a r y 15th, 2006 specifically, February 17th, 2006 to refresh his recollection. "I w i l l a l s o p o i n t out t h a t I t h i n k I had an o b l i g a t i o n t o l o o k t h r o u g h t h e r e t o see i f t h e r e was an i n c o n s i s t e n t s t a t e m e n t i n t h e c a s e . Now, I've not found that, so I ' l l note that f o r the record. B e c a u s e we o f t e n h a v e t o do t h a t w i t h w i t n e s s e s in DHR r e c o r d s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c h i l d m o l e s t a t i o n c a s e s or likewise, to find that there was an inconsistency. I have not seen that in the d o c u m e n t s , and I ' l l n o t e t h a t f o r t h e r e c o r d . "I'm j u s t p o i n t i n g out t h a t I don't t h i n k t h a t t h e r e i s a n y means b y w h i c h t h e D e f e n s e c o u l d o b t a i n information about whether or not DHR contacted [Cook] a b o u t the accusation made a b o u t a b u s e of [ M a r s h a l l ' s c h i l d ] before the i n c i d e n t , t h a t i s to s a y , b e t w e e n F e b r u a r y t h e 1 4 t h , 2006 excuse me, F e b r u a r y 1 5 t h , 2006 and F e b r u a r y 2 4 t h , 2006, o t h e r t h a n t h r o u g h h a v i n g t h e DHR r e c o r d s p r o d u c e d . I w i l l s a y t h a t t h e r e [ a r e ] i n d i c a t i o n s i n t h e DHR records that [Cook] was contacted by DHR about the accusation made by [Marshall's child] between February 15th, 2006, and F e b r u a r y 2 4 t h 2006. I'm d i s c l o s i n g t h a t , because I t h i n k the appropriate 10 CR-09-0263 approach i s to say there's the Defense could obtain information. no o t h e r means b y w h i c h the discovery of that "Now, I'm n o t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t ' s a d m i s s i b l e y e t . I'm o n l y p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t r a t h e r t h a n g i v i n g a n y o n e these documents, which I think would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o do s o , r a t h e r t h a n g i v i n g e v e n t h e witness a document t o l o o k a t t h a t c o u l d refresh recollection, which I think i n the balancing a n a l y s i s w o u l d b e a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e t h i n g t o do when compared t o t h e p r i v i l e g e s t h a t s h o u l d attach to this type o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f c h i l d i s s u e s -- I t h i n k the appropriate approach f o r the Court to take is t o s a y DHR r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t [ C o o k ] was contacted on o r a b o u t February 1 7 t h , 2006 a n d i n t e r v i e w e d a b o u t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a l l e g e d l y made b y [ M a r s h a l l ' s c h i l d ] i n t h e c a s e . Now, t h a t ' s w h e r e I t h i n k I'm g o i n g t o e n d up w i t h t h e d o c u m e n t s . " (R. 247-59.) Marshall between After questioned February admitted family. that DHR this her about 15, 2006, and q u e s t i o n e d Virginia DHR's coming and F e b r u a r y had v i s i t e d After the State to t e s t i f y discussion, t h e home testified to 24, 2006. he recall r e c a l l e d DHR's a specific testified date. house Virginia and i n t e r v i e w e d rested i t s case, M a r s h a l l called the Cook h i m a b o u t DHR's c o m i n g t o h i s h o u s e between F e b r u a r y 15, 2006, and F e b r u a r y 24, 2006. that her and coming t o h i s house, Marshall took Cook stated but could the witness stand not and t h a t he c a l l e d DHR o n F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d a l l e g e d t h a t C o o k was a b u s i n g M a r s h a l l ' s 11 child. Although the c i r c u i t CR-09-0263 court told between allow the p a r t i e s February Marshall that 15, 2006, to inspect DHR visited and February t h e Cook's 24, 2006, t h e DHR r e c o r d s house i td i d not pertaining to that visit. Section entities 26-14-8, A l a . Code 1 975, to which child-abuse-and-neglect available. Section 26-14-8, p r o v i d e s , provides records a list may b e made i n pertinent part: " ( c ) The D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s shall establish and enforce reasonable rules and regulations governing the custody, use and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e r e p o r t s and r e c o r d s of child abuse and n e g l e c t . C h i l d abuse and n e g l e c t reports and records s h a l l be l i m i t e d t o t h e p u r p o s e s f o r which they a r e f u r n i s h e d and by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f l a w u n d e r w h i c h t h e y may b e f u r n i s h e d . T h e r e p o r t s and r e c o r d s o f c h i l d a b u s e a n d n e g l e c t a n d r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n o r t e s t i m o n y s h a l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l , a n d shall n o t be u s e d o r d i s c l o s e d f o r any p u r p o s e s other than: fl "(4) F o r u s e by a c o u r t where i t f i n d s t h a t s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f an issue before the c o u r t ; fl " ( f ) N o t h i n g i n t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l be c o n s t r u e d as r e s t r i c t i n g t h e a b i l i t y o f a d e p a r t m e n t t o r e f u s e to d i s c l o s e i d e n t i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the i n d i v i d u a l i n i t i a t i n g a report or complaint alleging suspected instances of child abuse or neglect, e x c e p t t h a t t h e d e p a r t m e n t may n o t r e f u s e s u c h a d i s c l o s u r e i n cases i n which a court orders such 12 of CR-09-0263 d i s c l o s u r e a f t e r t h e c o u r t has r e v i e w e d , i n c a m e r a , the r e c o r d of the department r e l a t e d to the r e p o r t o r c o m p l a i n t and has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t had reason to believe that the person making the report k n o w i n g l y made a f a l s e r e p o r t . "(g) Any p e r s o n r e c e i v i n g r e p o r t s o r r e c o r d s o f c h i l d abuse or n e g l e c t or r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n under t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l m a i n t a i n the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of t h e d o c u m e n t s and i n f o r m a t i o n and n o t d i s c l o s e i t e x c e p t as a u t h o r i z e d b y law. "(h) Any confidentiality It i s c l e a r from the Code 1975, only of to legislature's establish a central registry child 2d r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s of § 26-14-8, A l a . q u o t e d above t h a t the abuse and confidentiality So. violation of the provision of s h a l l be a C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r . " 333, 26-14-8, 336-37 which reporting of neglect but also See (recognizing establishes child abuse, is a that subsequent r e l e a s e of i n f o r m a t i o n 607 goal for DHR of § for confidentiality). i n s p e c t i o n of i n keeping the State, v. for primary for and is the provide to i n camera defense Jordan not instances provide registry circuit Marshall's to central The to court's for reporting records. those i n t e n t was DHR records i t f o u n d t o be material with the the intent of the legislature. In 1988), Russell the v. State, defendant, who 533 was So. the 13 2d 725 boyfriend (Ala. of Crim. the App. victim's CR-09-0263 mother, sexual to was abuse. inspect Court convicted On the appeal, entire DHR first-degree rape DHR States Supreme U.S. file. file 39 I n so d o i n g , Court's and first-degree R u s s e l l a r g u e d t h a t he concerning r e j e c t e d R u s s e l l ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t he entire 480 of this Court the was was victim. entitled relied decision i n Pennsylvania on the v. (1987): "'The o p i n i o n s o f t h i s C o u r t show t h a t the right of confrontation is a trial right, designed to prevent improper r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e t y p e s o f q u e s t i o n s t h a t defense counsel may ask during c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . See C a l i f o r n i a v . G r e e n , 399 U.S. 1 4 9 , 1 5 7 , 90 S. C t . 1 9 3 0 , 1 9 3 4 , 26 L. E d . 2d 489 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ( " [ I ] t i s t h i s l i t e r a l r i g h t to ' c o n f r o n t ' the w i t n e s s at the time of t r i a l t h a t forms the core of the v a l u e s f u r t h e r e d by t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e " ) ; B a r b e r v . P a g e , 390 U.S. 7 1 9 , 7 2 5 , 88 S. C t . 1318, 1322, 20 L. E d . 2d 255 (1968) ("The r i g h t to c o n f r o n t a t i o n i s b a s i c a l l y a t r i a l r i g h t " ) . The a b i l i t y t o q u e s t i o n adverse witnesses, however, does not i n c l u d e the power to r e q u i r e the p r e t r i a l d i s c l o s u r e o f any and a l l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t might be useful in contradicting u n f a v o r a b l e testimony. Normally the r i g h t to c o n f r o n t one's a c c u s e r s i s s a t i s f i e d i f defense counsel r e c e i v e s wide l a t i t u d e at t r i a l t o q u e s t i o n w i t n e s s e s . D e l a w a r e v. F e n s t e r e r , s u p r a , 474 U.S. [ 1 5 ] , a t 2 2 , 106 S. Ct. [ 2 9 2 ] , a t 296 [88 L. E d . 2d 15 (1985)]. In s h o r t , the C o n f r o n t a t i o n Clause only guarantees "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not 14 entitled This to the United Ritchie, CR-09-0263 cross-examination that is effective in w h a t e v e r way, and t o w h a t e v e r e x t e n t , the d e f e n s e m i g h t w i s h . " I d . , a t [ 2 0 ] , 106 S. C t . , a t 295 (emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . See a l s o O h i o v . R o b e r t s , s u p r a , 448 U.S. [56], a t 7 3 , n. 12, 100 S. C t . [ 2 5 3 1 ] , a t 2 5 4 3 , n. 12 [65 L. E d . 2d 597 (1980)] (except i n "extraordinary cases, no inquiry into 'effectiveness' [of cross-examination] is required").' " R i t c h i e , 107 S. C t . a t 999 (emphasis in o r i g i n a l ) (footnote omitted). and brackets fl " L i k e Alabama's § 26-14-8, the Pennsylvania s t a t u t e d i d not grant a b s o l u t e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y but provided for disclosure in certain circumstances. T h e r e f o r e , R i t c h i e was e n t i t l e d t o t h e d i s c l o s u r e o f i n f o r m a t i o n m a t e r i a l to h i s defense. "'In the a b s e n c e o f any apparent state p o l i c y t o t h e c o n t r a r y , we t h e r e f o r e h a v e no reason to believe that relevant i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d n o t be d i s c l o s e d when a court of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n determines t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n i s " m a t e r i a l " to the defense of the accused.' fl I "'... R i t c h i e i s e n t i t l e d to have the CYS file r e v i e w e d by t h e t r i a l court to determine whether i t contains information that probably would have changed the o u t c o m e o f h i s t r i a l . ' R i t c h i e , 107 S. C t . at 1002. "Additionally, the Ritchie had no right Supreme C o u r t h e l d that to full disclosure or 15 CR-09-0263 i n s p e c t i o n of the c o n f i d e n t i a l the c h i l d abuse agency. files and records "'A defendant's right to discover e x c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e does not i n c l u d e the unsupervised a u t h o r i t y to search through t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h ' s f i l e s . See U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B a g l e y , 473 U.S., a t 6 7 5 , 105 S. C t . , a t [ 3 3 7 9 ] ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A g u r s , s u p r a , 427 U.S. [ 9 7 ] , a t 111, 96 S. C t . [2392], at 2401 [(1976)]. Although the eye of an a d v o c a t e may be h e l p f u l t o a d e f e n d a n t i n f e r r e t i n g out i n f o r m a t i o n , D e n n i s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 384 U.S. 8 5 5 , 8 7 5 , 86 S. C t . 1840, 1851, 16 L. E d . 2 d 973 (1966), t h i s Court has n e v e r h e l d - - e v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a statute restricting disclosure--that a d e f e n d a n t a l o n e may make t h e determination as t o t h e m a t e r i a l i t y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . S e t t l e d p r a c t i c e i s to the c o n t r a r y . In the t y p i c a l c a s e where a d e f e n d a n t makes o n l y a general request for exculpatory m a t e r i a l u n d e r B r a d y v . M a r y l a n d , 373 U.S. 8 3 , 83 S. C t . 1 1 9 4 [ , 10 L. E d . 2d 215 (1963)], i t i s the State t h a t decides which information m u s t be d i s c l o s e d . U n l e s s d e f e n s e counsel becomes aware that other exculpatory e v i d e n c e was w i t h h e l d a n d b r i n g s i t t o t h e court's attention, the prosecutor's d e c i s i o n on d i s c l o s u r e i s f i n a l . Defense counsel has no constitutional right to c o n d u c t h i s own s e a r c h o f t h e S t a t e ' s f i l e s to argue relevance. See Weatherford v. B u r s e y , 429 U.S. 5 4 5 , 5 5 9 , 97 S. C t . 837, 8 4 6 , 51 L. E d . 2d 30 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( " T h e r e i s no general c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to d i s c o v e r y in a c r i m i n a l case, and Brady d i d not create one"). "'We well as ensuring find that Ritchie's interest (as that of the Commonwealth) in a fair trial can be protected 16 of CR-09-0263 f u l l y by r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h e submitted only to the t r i a l camera review fl CYS files court for be in I The C o m m o n w e a l t h ' s p u r p o s e [ i n p r o t e c t i n g i t s c h i l d abuse i n f o r m a t i o n and in uncovering and treating child abuse] w o u l d be f r u s t r a t e d i f t h i s confidential m a t e r i a l h a d t o be d i s c l o s e d u p o n d e m a n d t o a defendant charged with c r i m i n a l c h i l d a b u s e , s i m p l y b e c a u s e a t r i a l c o u r t may not recognize exculpatory evidence. Neither p r e c e d e n t n o r common s e n s e r e q u i r e s s u c h a result.' Ritchie, 107 S. C t . a t 1003-04 (footnote omitted)." 533 So. 2d Like the entitled that to were f o r the i n camera and determine the which, victim to Marshall Cook's he says, DHR would the in received theory house between 17 the not p e r t a i n i n g to have established evidence case; of was any so files camera of the was files Marshall l i e about M a r s h a l l ' s the DHR whether defense. i n s p e c t i o n of the Following court, Virginia to Russell, Marshall i n s p e c t i o n of could material m a t e r i a l to M a r s h a l l ' s to i n R i t c h i e and court child, offense. circuit an t o h i s own Marshall's the defendants circuit documents motive 726-28. only the entitled at involvement inspection the court by 15, in the deemed i . e . , t h a t DHR February a 2006, went and CR-09-0263 F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . M a r s h a l l was t h e n a l l o w e d the witness house stand between Additionally, about February Marshall DHR's c o m i n g testified Although an Marshall he was a l l o w e d abuse records correctly wish, he i t sdiscretion deemed m a t e r i a l Based circuit on was court February 24, and M a r s h a l l , 2006. Virginia himself, that also h e was n o t g i v e n the witnesses afforded an which i s to the extent opportunity a l l Accordingly, the c i r c u i t when and o n l y p r o v i d e d him with that foregoing for i s court d i d i t d i d not disclose to Marshall's the DHR's v i s i t i n g h i s to cross-examine recognizes cross-examination, to Marshall and Cook t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s he made a b o u t C o o k t o DHR. constitutionally required. not 2006, to cross-examine might effective 15, him about t o the house, regarding opportunity that and q u e s t i o n to recall t h e DHR information i t defense. reasons, t h e judgment of the i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. W e l c h , P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , 18 and Burke, J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.