State v. Barka

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the State may overcome the physician-patient privilege to obtain medical records in a felony aggravated driving while intoxicated prosecution only upon a showing of compelling justification and the unavailability of reasonably available alternative evidence. The court rejected the argument that the physician-reporting statute independently authorized subpoenas for privileged medical records and established standards requiring admissibility, trial sufficiency, and substantial good-faith investigative efforts. The court vacated and remanded the trial court’s rulings in the Carta, Payne, and Barka matters, requiring notice to the defendant and in camera review before disclosure.

Holdings

1. RSA 631:6 requires medical providers to report information concerning injuries they believe were caused by criminal acts, but it does not give the State unilateral authority to subpoena privileged medical records based on an alleged failure to comply with the reporting duty.
2. To establish essential need for privileged medical records, the requesting party must prove both that the information is unavailable from another source and that a compelling justification exists for disclosure.
3. The availability of alternative evidence must be evaluated by considering whether the evidence is admissible at trial, sufficient to overcome a motion for directed verdict, and sought through substantial, good-faith investigative efforts by the State.
4. The trial court’s essentiality rulings were vacated because it failed to determine whether competent alternative evidence was admissible and sufficient at trial and whether the State had made substantial, good-faith efforts to investigate alternative sources.
5. Any subpoena issued to a hospital or medical provider to obtain privileged medical records must also be served on the individual whose records are sought.
6. When a party objects to production and the State establishes a legal right to override the physician-patient privilege, the trial court must conduct an in camera review and ensure that irrelevant, nonresponsive, and unnecessary medical information is not disclosed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether RSA 631:6, the physician-reporting statute, authorizes the State to subpoena privileged medical records when it believes medical providers failed to report injuries caused by criminal acts.
2. What showing the State must make to obtain privileged medical records when the records are sought to establish the serious-bodily-injury element of a felony.
3. Whether the trial court properly determined that disclosure of each defendant’s medical records was essential despite potentially available alternative evidence.
4. Whether a subpoena for privileged medical records must be served on the individual whose records are sought.
5. Whether the trial court must conduct an in camera review and limit disclosure when privileged medical records are ordered produced.

Disposition

vacated