291 P.3d 328
Alaska Ct. App.2012Background
- Standifer is charged with sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, and physical assault against N.G.
- N.G. has a history of alcohol treatment/abuse and possible bipolar disorder noted by medical providers.
- The superior court ordered N.G. to identify all past health care providers and sign a blanket release for records to be inspected in camera for relevance to credibility.
- The court intended to disclose relevant portions of the records to Standifer if they affected N.G.'s ability to perceive or report events.
- The Kalmakoff decision was used to justify obtaining and inspecting N.G.'s psychotherapy records, implying non-privileged material might exist.
- This Court reverses, holding the psychotherapist-patient privilege is broader and protects records from disclosure, and the lower-order in camera plan was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of psychotherapist-patient privilege | Standifer argues privilege allows non-privileged material in records to be reviewed to separate and disclose relevant parts. | NG's privilege bars disclosure; records largely privileged, and identities alone may be protected. | Privilege should be construed broadly; records are largely privileged and not subject to in camera disclosure. |
| Authority to order provider identities and records | Standifer asserts need for records to test credibility; privileges should yield to defense's need. | NG's privacy and privilege protect identities and contents; court cannot compel production of records. | Order to identify providers and release records was improper. |
| In camera review of privileged records | Standifer seeks in camera review to determine if any non-privileged information is discoverable. | If records are privileged, in camera review is unnecessary or improper. | Court should not conduct in camera review given the broadly protected privilege and lack of sufficient showing. |
| Constitutional/privacy considerations | Defendant's confrontation rights could override privacy interests for relevant evidence. | Victim privacy rights restrict compelled disclosure of treatment records. | The privacy interests and privilege are not overridden; reversal of lower court avoids constitutional intrusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allred v. State, 554 P.2d 417 (Alaska 1976) (confidential psychotherapy communications essential to therapy; privilege protects more than direct statements)
- Falcon v. Alaska Pub. Offices Comm'n, 570 P.2d 469 (Alaska 1977) (disclosure of patient identity to public office might reveal sensitive information)
- Gunnerud v. State, 611 P.2d 69 (Alaska 1980) (in camera review of a psychiatric report to assess credibility)
- Spencer v. State, 642 P.2d 1371 (Alaska App. 1982) (in camera review of witness records where records already in possession of State)
- Cooper v. District Court, 133 P.3d 692 (Alaska App. 2006) (context of evidence and scope of privilege aligned with broader protective interpretation)
- Milligan v. State, 286 P.3d 1065 (Alaska App. 2012) (prior alcoholic blackouts relevant if recent and connected to events)