State v. Johnson

Respondent was charged with sexual abuse of a minor and related offenses. Prior to trial, Respondent sought, by means of a subpoena duces tecum, access to the victim’s mental health records. The trial court denied Respondent’s request for an in camera review of those records, concluding that Respondent did not sufficiently establish the likelihood that the records sought would provide exculpatory evidence, as required by Goldsmith v. State. Picking up where Goldsmith left off, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a criminal defendant’s trial rights may prevail over a victim’s right to assert a privilege in his or her mental health records; (2) a criminal defendant is entitled to an in camera review of a victim’s mental health records if the defendant can establish a reasonable likelihood that the privileged records contain exculpatory information relevant to the defense; and (3) in this case, Respondent’s proffer did not meet the required threshold, and therefore, he was not entitled to review the victim’s counseling records. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law