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.
