Can Utah courts review rape crisis counselor records in camera? State v. Gomez Explained

In State v. Gomez, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether trial courts have authority to conduct in camera review of rape crisis counselor records protected by Utah’s Confidential Communications for Sexual Assault Act.

Background and Facts

Francisco Gomez was charged with rape after allegedly having non-consensual sex with an intoxicated woman at a party. The victim, Rachelle Gallegos, had received counseling from a rape crisis center following the incident. During pretrial proceedings, Gomez subpoenaed the center’s records regarding Gallegos. The center moved to quash the subpoena, arguing the records were protected by absolute statutory privilege under Utah Code Section 78-3c-4. The trial court granted the motion to quash and denied Gomez’s motion to compel discovery.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court could conduct an in camera review of privileged rape crisis counselor records when none of the statutory exceptions applied. Gomez argued that Pennsylvania v. Ritchie and State v. Cardall required such review to protect his constitutional rights. The court also addressed whether the trial court properly excluded cross-examination evidence about the victim’s alleged use of a false identification card.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court distinguished this case from Ritchie and Cardall, emphasizing that those cases involved qualified privileges that contained exceptions allowing judicial review. Here, the Confidential Communications for Sexual Assault Act creates an absolute privilege with limited statutory exceptions. Since Gallegos was an adult who did not consent to disclosure, and no other exceptions applied, the privilege was absolute. The court held that Ritchie expressly limited its holding to qualified privileges and declined to extend constitutional due process requirements to absolute privileges.

Regarding the excluded cross-examination evidence, the court found the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Utah Rules of Evidence 608(b) and 403, concluding that evidence of false ID use had minimal probative value for truthfulness but substantial potential for unfair prejudice.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s sexual assault counselor privilege operates differently from other testimonial privileges. Practitioners must carefully analyze whether a privilege is absolute or qualified before seeking discovery. The court’s refusal to address inadequately briefed constitutional arguments also underscores the importance of thorough legal analysis beyond mere citation to authority. For impeachment evidence, counsel should be prepared to articulate specific probative value for truthfulness rather than general relevance.