Rubio v. Superior Court
249 Cal. Rptr. 419, 1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 923, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1343 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial conflicts with a third party's constitutional right to privacy and statutory marital privilege over evidence, a court must balance these competing interests through an in camera review of the evidence to determine if its production is necessary to protect the defendant's rights.
Facts:
- Rony Rubio lived in the S. home with his mother, who was the housekeeper.
- Rubio was accused of molesting the S. family's seven-year-old daughter, B.S.
- Mr. and Mrs. S. had previously made a videotape of themselves engaging in sexual acts, which they intended to be confidential and stored in a closet.
- The tape was labeled 'Superman' and stored separately from other tapes in the house.
- Before the alleged molestation occurred, both Rubio and B.S. viewed at least part of the videotape.
- Rubio claimed that B.S. fabricated the molestation allegations after gaining sexual knowledge from the tape.
- B.S. told police she saw the tape and that Rubio got the idea for the alleged acts from viewing it.
Procedural Posture:
- Rony Rubio was charged in superior court with two counts of felony child molestation.
- Rubio served a subpoena duces tecum on Mr. and Mrs. S. to produce the videotape for his preliminary hearing.
- The magistrate granted the motion from Mr. and Mrs. S. to quash the subpoena.
- At the preliminary hearing, Mr. and Mrs. S. successfully asserted marital privilege to avoid answering questions about the tape.
- After being held to answer, Rubio again served subpoenas on Mr. and Mrs. S. for the tape in superior court.
- The superior court judge granted the second motion to quash the subpoenas, finding the tape was protected by marital privilege.
- Rubio (petitioner) sought an extraordinary writ from the Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court's order.
- The Court of Appeal initially denied the petition, but the Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal, ordering it to issue an alternative writ.
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 a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial compel the production of a videotape depicting confidential marital acts when the tape is protected by both the statutory marital privilege and the constitutional right to privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Scoville, P. J.
Yes, a criminal defendant's constitutional rights may compel the production of such evidence, but only after a trial court conducts an in camera review to properly balance the competing constitutional rights. The court first affirmed that the videotape qualifies as a confidential marital communication protected by both statutory privilege and the constitutional right to privacy established in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut. However, this right conflicts with the petitioner's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, including the ability to present a defense. Citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, the court distinguished this case from Davis v. Alaska, noting this is a conflict between two competing constitutional rights (fair trial vs. privacy), not a constitutional right versus a mere statutory privilege. The court concluded that the only way to balance these profound interests is for the trial judge to review the videotape in private (in camera). This review will determine whether the tape contains information so essential to the petitioner's defense that its disclosure is necessary, thereby outweighing the significant privacy interests of Mr. and Mrs. S.
Analysis:
This case establishes the critical procedural safeguard of in camera review for resolving conflicts between a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and a third party's constitutional right of privacy. Rather than creating a hierarchical rule where one right automatically trumps the other, the court mandates a case-specific balancing test to be conducted by the trial judge. This approach allows courts to protect a defendant's access to potentially exculpatory evidence while minimizing the intrusion into the profound privacy interests of non-parties. The decision provides a crucial framework for trial courts handling discoverable evidence that is both highly sensitive and constitutionally protected.
