People v. Carrier
867 N.W.2d 463
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Carrier was charged with threat of terrorism and felony-firearm.
- Crisis-hotline conversation with emergency services specialist Ginther and the subsequent 911 recording were introduced as part of the prosecution’s case.
- Circuit court excluded Ginther’s testimony and the 911 recording on privilege grounds; prosecution appealed.
- Ginther operated under a limited social-work license supervised by Kristy Moore; crisis-line context involved Bay Arenac Behavioral Health/Crossroads.
- Michigan statutes MCL 330.1750/1700(h) and MCL 333.18513 governed privilege; MCL 330.1946 imposed a duty to warn or protect when threats involved third parties.
- Court held the communications were generally privileged but waived to the extent they contained threats against identifiable third persons, remanding for proceedings; no outright reinstatement of privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ginther’s crisis-line communications were privileged | Carrier argues privilege applies under MCL 330.1750/1700(h) and MCL 333.18513 | Carrier contends privilege should shield all crisis-line communications | Privileged generally, but waived for threats to identifiable third persons under MCL 330.1946(1) |
| Whether the duty to warn under MCL 330.1946 overrides privilege | Prosecution relies on duty to warn as carving-out to privilege | Privilege should remain intact despite duty to warn | Duty to warn temporarily overrides privilege to the extent of stated threats; waiver permanent to that extent |
| Whether post-disclosure testimony/evidence remains admissible | Hearsay/privilege considerations support admission | Once privileged information is disclosed under duty to warn, further testimony should be excluded | Post-disclosure testimony about threats is admissible; context testimony about non-threat communications not barred by privilege |
Key Cases Cited
- Lukity v. People, 460 Mich 484 (1999) (admissibility review is abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Meier v Awaad, 299 Mich App 655 (2013) (privilege questions reviewed de novo; statutory interpretation applies)
- People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (1994) (privilege narrowly defined; exceptions broadly construed)
- People v Childs, 243 Mich App 360 (2000) (statutory privileges are narrowly defined; exceptions broadly construed)
- Dawe v Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assoc, 485 Mich 20 (1990) (discussed privilege in context of mental-health care duties)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (federal psychotherapist-patient privilege extends to licensed social workers)
- United States v Hayes, 227 F.3d 578 (2000) (dangerous-patient exception rejected in federal context)
- Oleszko v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 243 F.3d 1154 (2001) (federal extension of Jaffee to work-site counselors)
- United States v Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (2003) (rejected dangerous-patient exception in Ninth Circuit)
- United States v Ghane, 673 F.3d 771 (2012) (rejected dangerous-patient exception in Sixth Circuit)
- United States v Glass, 133 F.3d 1356 (1998) (Tenth Circuit view on danger-based disclosure)
- United States v Auster, 517 F.3d 312 (2008) (commentary on disclosure impact on therapy confidentiality)