Opinion
CR170288924T
09-04-2019
STATE of Connecticut v. Michael RANIERI
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
File Date: September 5, 2019
OPINION
Dewey, J.
The defendant is charged with three counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70. He has filed a Motion for In Camera Examination of Records.
Facts of the Case
The facts of this case can be summarized as follows:
The complainant in this case, H.V., met the defendant when she was in the sixth grade. He was her school bus driver. She also worked for the defendant, helping with his home-based DJ business. In September of 2010, H.V.’s parents reported that the defendant gave their daughter inappropriate gifts. They also alleged that H.V. sent the defendant nude photographs of herself.
H.V. told investigating officers that the defendant began his advances in April 2010. By September the actions went from kissing to sexual intercourse. H.V. was blindfolded at times, forced to engage in vaginal, oral and anal intercourse. According to the warrant, H.V. alleged that the defendant drugged her and then, together with four friends, forcibly raped her. There was a suggestion that H.V was asked to engage in sexual acts with the defendant’s dog.
During the time the defendant and H.V. were intimate, H.V. ran away from home. Her parents filed a Family with Service Needs petition in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Britain. The Department of Children and Families acknowledged receipt of the petition but was unable to provide services insofar as H.V. was in a runaway status. Through the juvenile court probation office, H.V. received respite care at the Connecticut Junior Republic facilities.
During their investigation, police officers received an opinion from H.V.’s mother that her daughter was compulsive and dramatic. H.V.’s mother also informed the officers that her daughter was on multiple medications.
Discussion
The mere existence of a juvenile court referral, family with service needs petition, department of children and families referral, emotional behavior, respite care or use of medication does not automatically impugn a witness’ ability to testify truthfully or to relay events accurately, nor does it automatically subject that witness’ psychiatric records to disclosure. See State v. Blake, 106 Conn.App. 345, 352, 942 A.2d 496 ("[t]he linchpin of the determination of the defendant’s access to the records is whether they sufficiently disclose material especially probative of the [witness’] ability to comprehend, know and correctly relate the truth ... so as to justify breach of their confidentiality and disclosing them to the defendant in order to protect his right of confrontation" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 922, 951 A.2d 573 (2008). To make a threshold showing that an in camera review is appropriate, the petitioner must show that the witness had a "substantially diminished" capacity to "observe, recollect and narrate" the event. State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166, 176, 471 A.2d 949 (1974).
The defendant has made a sweeping request, but relies on the possibility that there "might" be information in the files requested. He has produced no evidence that the failure to produce the information would impair his right of confrontation. He has failed to establish the issues to which each of these requests relates, other than to indicate that H.V. might not have made earlier disclosures.
The request for review is denied.
So ordered