Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(2)(B) permits pretrial discovery of a defendant’s medical and psychiatric treatment records for use by a court-ordered psychiatric examiner. The court concluded that the defendant’s constitutional and statutory privileges were waived to the limited extent necessary for the examination and established an interim “same records” procedure for access and disclosure. The court reversed and remanded the motion judge’s order denying access to the records.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 (b) (2) (B) permits pretrial discovery of a defendant's medical and psychiatric treatment records for use by the Commonwealth's court-ordered psychiatric examiner.
- Whether disclosure of those records violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, or the statutory psychotherapist-patient privilege.
- What interim procedure should govern access to and disclosure of the defendant's treatment records.
Holdings
- Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 (b) (2) (B) permits pretrial discovery of the defendant's medical and psychiatric treatment records by the Commonwealth's rule 14 (b) (2) (B) examiner because review of treatment records is inherent in and necessary to a comprehensive psychiatric examination and the required expert report.
- By giving notice of an intent to offer expert testimony concerning his mental state based in part on his own statements, the defendant waived, to the extent necessary for the ordered examination, his Fifth Amendment and art. 12 privilege against self-incrimination and any applicable statutory psychotherapist-patient privilege.
- Until the rules advisory committee establishes a different mechanism, the defendant must provide the rule 14 (b) (2) (B) examiner with the same records provided to or considered by the defense expert; the examiner may seek additional necessary records by subpoena, subject to sealing, reciprocal access, and the defendant's opportunity to object.
Key quotations
“The answer must be yes.” (at 639)
“Because the express language of mle 14 (b) (2) (B) allows for an “examination,” so too does it allow for all that is inherent in a psychiatric examination.” (at 643)
“Therefore, there is no statutory impediment to the rule 14 (b) (2) (B) examiner’s review of a defendant’s mental health treatment records.” (at 646)
“Until the committee has the opportunity to consider these issues, we follow a “same records” approach whereby a defendant is to provide the rale 14 (b) (2) (B) examiner with the same records provided to or considered by the defense expert.” (at 649)
Factual background
The defendant faced charges arising from a jewelry-counter robbery at a department store in Woburn during which a police officer was killed. He notified the Commonwealth that he intended to offer expert testimony regarding his mental condition at the time of the alleged crime as part of a lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense, with the expert relying in part on the defendant's statements. The Commonwealth sought access to the defendant's medical and psychiatric treatment records so that its court-ordered psychiatric examiner could conduct a meaningful examination and prepare the required report.
Procedural history
A grand jury returned twenty-two indictments, including first-degree murder and masked armed robbery charges. After the defendant notified the Commonwealth that he intended to present expert testimony concerning his mental state and lack of criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth sought an independent psychiatric examination and disclosure of medical and psychiatric records. The motion judge allowed the examination but denied records discovery; the Commonwealth petitioned the county court, and the single justice reported the matter to the full court.
Remand instructions
Reverse the motion judge's order insofar as it denied the Commonwealth access to the defendant's medical and psychiatric records for the rule 14 (b) (2) (B) examiner, and conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including the interim same-records procedure and protections described by the court.