Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court held that the psychologist-patient privilege protected a sexual-assault victim's treatment records from discovery, including in camera review. The victim's testimony that her psychologist helped her narrow the date of the alleged assault did not waive the privilege. The court made absolute its rule to show cause and directed that the subpoena duces tecum be quashed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the psychologist-patient privilege protected the victim's treatment records from discovery absent an express or implied waiver.
- Whether the victim's testimony at the preliminary hearing that her psychologist helped her recall the timing of the assault constituted a waiver of the psychologist-patient privilege.
- Whether the trial court had discretion to review the privileged records in camera without first finding a waiver.
Holdings
- Once the psychologist-patient privilege attaches, it protects both testimonial disclosures and treatment files or records, and the defendant may not compel discovery unless the privilege holder has expressly or impliedly waived the privilege.
- The victim did not waive the psychologist-patient privilege by testifying that Dr. Aldrich helped her narrow the date of the alleged assault.
- The trial court lacked discretion to order production of the psychologist's records for in camera review because no waiver of the psychologist-patient privilege had been established.
Key quotations
“We hold that the psychologist-patient privilege applies and shields the documents requested by Defendant from discovery—even in camera review by the trial court.” (55 P.3d at 798)
“Once the privilege has attached, the Defendant may not compel discovery unless it is waived.” (55 P.3d at 800)
“Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not have the discretion to order Petitioner's records be disclosed during discovery, even for in camera review.” (55 P.3d at 802)
Factual background
The defendant was charged with sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. After the alleged assault was reported, the minor victim received treatment from Dr. Nancy Aldrich, a licensed psychologist. At a preliminary hearing, the victim testified that Aldrich had helped her narrow the date of the assault from November to December, and the trial court subsequently allowed the information to be amended. The defendant then subpoenaed all records relating to the victim's therapy, and the trial court ordered the records produced for in camera review.
Procedural history
In a Pueblo County criminal prosecution, the defendant subpoenaed the records of the psychologist who treated the alleged sexual-assault victim. The trial court denied the psychologist's motion to quash and ordered the records submitted for in camera review. The psychologist petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for a rule to show cause, and the Supreme Court exercised original jurisdiction because disclosure of confidential records could cause irreparable harm not remediable on appeal.
Remand instructions
The rule to show cause was made absolute, requiring the trial court's subpoena duces tecum to be quashed and precluding in camera review or other disclosure of the psychologist's records absent waiver.