In re A.M.

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of A.M.'s motion to quash a subpoena seeking post-assault counseling records. The court held that the trial court properly conducted the required hearing under Criminal Rule 17(C) and did not abuse its discretion in finding the subpoena nonoppressive. The court also upheld an in camera inspection of the allegedly privileged records while emphasizing that the materials were to remain under seal pending a further evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly denied the motion to quash under Criminal Rule 17(C) after conducting the required evidentiary hearing and determining that the subpoena satisfied all four elements of the Nixon test.
2. A.M. failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in ordering a limited in camera inspection of the counseling records. The court did not decide the broader constitutional and privilege questions that A.M. had not developed or preserved for decision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly denied A.M.'s motion to quash after conducting the evidentiary hearing required by Criminal Rule 17(C) and determining that the four Nixon requirements were satisfied.
2. Whether the trial court erred by ordering privileged counseling records produced for a limited in camera inspection despite A.M.'s contention that no statutory privilege exception applied and that the defendant had no countervailing constitutional right to access the records.

Disposition

affirmed