Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court held that Indiana's counselor-client privilege does not protect counseling communications made before the privilege statute's effective date. The court reversed the trial court's quashing of the subpoena as to records involving the counselor-client privilege, but affirmed that the State was not entitled to review psychologist-patient records before a court determined whether an exception applied. The court also affirmed the trial court's in camera determination that the psychologist-patient records did not fall within the homicide exception and remanded the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1 applies to communications made before the statute's July 1, 1990 effective date.
- Whether the counselor/client privilege statute applies retroactively as a remedial or procedural statute.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by conducting an in-camera inspection without permitting the State to review the records to assess the homicide exception.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the psychologist/patient records did not fall within the homicide exception.
Holdings
- Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1 protects only communications made after its July 1, 1990 effective date; it does not protect counseling communications made before the statute was enacted merely because disclosure was sought after enactment.
- Even if Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1 is remedial or procedural, it is not applied retroactively absent strong and compelling reasons or clear legislative intent.
- The State was not entitled to review privileged psychologist/patient records merely to determine whether an exception applied; the trial court could decide access through an in-camera inspection.
- The State failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the psychologist/patient records did not fall within the homicide exception.
Key quotations
“Consequently, because the focus of the statute is on the underlying communications and not, as Center contends, on the ultimate disclosure of the communications, the statute only protects communications made after the effective date.” (918-919)
“Despite language in Bourbon and Martin suggesting otherwise, not all remedial statutes are automatically applied retroactively.” (920)
“Allowing the State itself to review the documents in order to make that determination would eviscerate the reason the privilege exists in the first place, namely: to protect confidential communications between psychologists and patients.” (921)
“A trial court is accorded broad discretion in ruling on issues of discovery. On review, we presume that the trial court's decision is correct, and the party challenging the decision has the burden of persuading us that the trial court abused its discretion.” (923)
Factual background
Between May 1986 and April 1989, Robert Jeffrey Pelley, his father, and his stepmother received counseling from the Family and Children's Center. The Center maintained intake records, progress notes, a psychological evaluation, and billing records. In 2002, after Pelley was charged with the 1989 murders of his father, stepmother, and two stepsisters, the State subpoenaed the family's counseling records. The Center moved to quash, asserting statutory counselor/client and psychologist/patient privileges.
Procedural history
Pelley was charged in 2002 with the 1989 murders of four family members. The Family and Children's Center moved to quash the State's subpoena for counseling records, asserting counselor/client and psychologist/patient privileges. After an in-camera inspection, the trial court quashed the subpoena. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The cause was remanded after reversal of the order quashing the subpoena insofar as it sought communications covered by the counselor/client privilege. The psychologist/patient privilege and the trial court's in-camera procedure were affirmed.