Jean Bernard Germain v. State of Maryland
769 A.2d 931 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The confidentiality afforded to a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) report is not absolute and does not preclude its use in a criminal proceeding to refresh a witness's recollection, especially when the witness is the subject of the report.
Facts:
- Jean Bernard Germain and John Campbell were inmates assigned to the same prison cell.
- Germain had requested a cellmate who did not smoke and later testified he complained that Campbell was HIV positive and had sexually propositioned him.
- A correctional sergeant testified he was only aware of Germain's complaints about Campbell's smoking.
- On August 1, 1998, a violent altercation occurred in which Germain stabbed Campbell approximately 104 times.
- Campbell testified that Germain attacked him unprovoked after he tried to light a cigarette.
- Germain testified that he acted in self-defense after Campbell, whom Germain knew was a convicted sex offender, made unwanted sexual advances and then attacked him.
- During cross-examination at trial, Campbell acknowledged his prior sex offense convictions but claimed he could not remember the specific details of the crimes.
Procedural Posture:
- Jean Bernard Germain was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of multiple offenses, including attempted second degree murder.
- Germain, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court, granted Germain's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the confidential nature of a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) report create an absolute bar that prevents its use by a defendant to refresh the recollection of a witness during cross-examination?
Opinions:
Majority - Cathell, J.
No. The confidential nature of a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) report is not an absolute bar and does not prevent its use to refresh a witness's recollection. The trial court erred by concluding it had no authority to permit such use. The court's reasoning is that the relevant Maryland statute makes PSIs confidential from 'public inspection' except by court order, meaning the confidentiality is not absolute and is not intended to bar all uses in official court proceedings. Furthermore, there is a critical distinction between admitting a document as evidence and using it merely to refresh a witness's memory (present recollection revived). In the latter case, the document itself is not evidence, and wide latitude is given regarding what can be used as a memory stimulus. Here, showing the PSI to Campbell, the subject of the report, did not violate the core purpose of the confidentiality rule, as he already had a statutory right to view it. The trial court's failure to recognize its discretion and its blanket prohibition based on an erroneous understanding of the law constituted reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope and limits of the confidentiality surrounding Pre-Sentence Investigation reports in Maryland. It establishes that the statutory protection against 'public inspection' does not create an absolute privilege that bars all in-court uses. By distinguishing between evidentiary use and non-evidentiary use like refreshing recollection, the court provides trial judges with the discretion to permit access where it serves the ends of justice, particularly for ensuring a defendant's right to a full and fair cross-examination. This ruling empowers defense counsel to challenge witnesses who claim memory loss about their criminal history when that history is relevant to the defendant's theory of the case, such as self-defense.
Unlock the full brief for Jean Bernard Germain v. State of Maryland