Can criminal defendants access sealed victim therapy records on appeal? State v. Chadwick Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed a novel question in State v. Chadwick regarding whether a criminal defendant can access sealed therapy records of a victim during appellate proceedings to prepare an adequate brief.

Background and Facts

David Chadwick was charged with four counts of sexual abuse of a child, F.L. Before trial, Chadwick sought in camera review of F.L.’s therapy records from multiple providers. The parties stipulated to an order authorizing the trial court to review the records and disclose only portions containing factual descriptions of alleged abuse, reports to law enforcement, or methods used to refresh the victim’s memory. The court reviewed records from five entities, found relevant information in only two sets of records, and provided Chadwick with limited excerpts while sealing the remaining records. Chadwick was convicted on one count and appealed.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Chadwick could access F.L.’s sealed therapy records for purposes of preparing his appellate brief under Rule 4-202.04 of the Utah Code of Judicial Administration. Chadwick argued that his constitutional rights to appeal, due process, and effective assistance of counsel required access to the records. F.L. and the State opposed disclosure, citing privacy interests under the Utah Victims’ Rights Amendment and the therapist-patient privilege.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court applied the three-part test under Rule 4-202.04, requiring courts to make findings about specific records, balance competing interests, and determine if reasonable alternatives to closure exist. The Court found three factors weighed against disclosure: (1) the records were sealed under a stipulated order that Chadwick himself prepared; (2) federal precedent from Pennsylvania v. Ritchie established that defendants have no constitutional right to personally examine confidential records when in camera review has occurred; and (3) F.L.’s privacy interests under the VRA and the State’s interest in protecting the therapist-patient privilege outweighed Chadwick’s claimed need for access.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important limits on appellate access to sealed court records. The Court emphasized that appellate counsel must work within the record established below and cannot expand discovery rights on appeal. The ruling also highlights the importance of careful preparation of stipulated orders at the trial level, as parties will be bound by their agreements regarding the scope of in camera review. Practitioners should ensure that trial-level orders adequately preserve appellate rights while protecting legitimate privacy interests.