No evidence was actually offered or entered. However, the Maine Supreme Court ruled in State v.

Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, Maine State Legislature - Ballotpedia

Begin, A. The Supreme Court said this improperly shifted the burden on Kibbe, taking the burden off the State. The Supreme Court advised that in the future, the State should be better prepared. As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content. Subscribe today. Loaded on Feb. Location: Maine.

LegiScan Search

State v. Kibbe Year Cite ME War on Drugs , Criminal Procedure. Criminal Procedure. McCray, 12 N. Green, N. Lynch, N. Bradley, JJ. Neither the alleged victim's interest in patient privacy nor the defendant's interest in disclosure will vary depending upon whether a public or private entity holds the medical or mental health records.

Moreover, Maine's statutes provide a framework that imposes public obligations on private mental health providers; although a private mental health provider may not be a state actor, such a provider is licensed by the State and has a legislatively imposed obligation to report child abuse. The confidentiality statutes, which contain the exception to confidentiality for materials ordered disclosed by a court, also impose obligations on private mental health providers, including as necessary to afford a defendant facing criminal charges access to any exculpatory materials.

See Lynch, N.

First Circuit Holds That Cell Phones Are Not Tracking Devices

See Ritchie, U. Bean, N. Rehkop, A. State v.

  1. Policy & Research Resources.
  2. About the Author;
  3. Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure with Advisory Notes & Comments!
  4. check value of used car!
  5. search lake cabin property wisconsin.
  6. motorola iden i730 phone book software download xp?

Johnson, A. Fayerweather, N. Ultimately, a court must order disclosure if there is a reasonable probability that the evidence in the otherwise confidential records could change the outcome of the trial. In different circumstances, we affirmed the quashing of a subpoena because the defendant had only speculated that the records could contain evidence that his daughter was fabricating allegations of sexual assault because she did not like his wife and wanted to leave his household.

Foggy, N. District Court, P. Although those records are almost certain to contain inculpatory information that led to the report of suspected child abuse, they may also contain exculpatory information about, for instance, the child's level of certainty in identifying the person who touched her with his mouth in her bedroom. Because information about the specific charged crimes likely exists in the specified records, the circumstances differ from the situation in Marroquin-Aldana, where the subpoena sought from the attorney of the victim's mother the mother's entire immigration file, particularly her U visa application, but did not state what specific information the application would contain that would be relevant to Marroquin-Aldana's defense.

Similarly, although the exact contents of the records subpoenaed here are not known, this matter is unlike the situation in Dube, where the counseling records predated the charged crimes and the defendant conceded that it was impossible to know what was in the records. This is a circumstance in which, based on principles of due process, the court must proceed with an in camera review. Blake, 63 P. Thus, the court erred in failing to undertake an in camera review of the records before the trial. To assure the protection of Olah's right to access exculpatory evidence, we must remand for the trial court to undertake the in camera review.

Instead, we remand the matter for the court to order AMHC to produce the relevant counseling records to the court. The court will then conduct the required in camera review. The court will review those records to determine whether any portions of them are favorable to Olah and material to his guilt, such that his interest in the disclosure of those portions of the records and the State's interest in the truth-seeking function of the courts outweigh the countervailing interests in patient confidentiality and the reporting of crimes.

The materiality of the records to Olah's guilt depends on whether there is a reasonable probability that the release to Olah of any portions of the records would have changed the outcome of a trial in Olah's favor. Olah may appeal the court's final denial of access to the records. Accordingly, following the release of any of the counseling records, the parties will have an opportunity to review the selected records and provide additional advocacy. Specifically, Olah may move for a new trial after the State and Olah's counsel have had an opportunity to review those records.

Criminal Speeding in Arizona Defense Guide

The court will then be called upon to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the availability of the now-released records in advance of trial would have changed the outcome of the trial. Order quashing subpoenas vacated. Remanded for the production and in camera review of certain counseling records, consistent with this opinion, and any further proceedings determined to be necessary.

In all other respects, judgment affirmed on the record before us. Title A M.

{{ data.message }}

See P. A new statute was enacted to replace former A M.

  • Thomas S. Marjerison | Norman, Hanson & DeTroy.
  • were to find a alternative health personal consultant.
  • Maine: (Still) The Way Life Should Be - Eaton Peabody | Maine Law Firm?
  • Although the indictment alleged that the crimes occurred in and the evidence showed conduct occurring in the autumn of , Olah does not argue that he was charged under the wrong statute. Moreover, in substance, current section A 1 E is identical to former section 1 C. Recent amendments to 22 M. Recent amendments to B M.

    The record does not contain a speedy trial demand, and it appears that Olah was not incarcerated while awaiting trial. The restyled Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure were not yet in effect at the time that Olah filed his notice of appeal. Theriault, A. Jacques, F.

    Robert W. Clifford

    The evidence of record fully supports jury findings that Olah's mouth made direct contact with the girl's genitals when the girl was under the age of fourteen, see A M. Any discrepancy between the dates stated in the indictment and the evidence produced at trial is not fatal to the conviction. Because we are addressing only the statutory confidentiality provision that the mental health provider asserted, the rule respecting the waiver of a rule-based privilege by a patient through voluntary disclosure in M. Although the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently considered overruling Green, the court was divided on the question, and therefore Green remains the law in Wisconsin.

    Notably, in People v. Foggy, the statute included a provision governing the confidentiality of records.

    Join Our Fight Against Gun Violence

    Because the records must be reviewed in the context of the trial record, the matter must be remanded to the jurist who presided over the trial. By submitting this form, you agree to FindLaw. We respect your privacy. Thank you for subscribing! Explore Resources For Practice Management. Legal Technology. Corporate Counsel. Reset A A Font size: Print.

    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Hunter J.