People v. Gonzales
56 Cal. 4th 353
Cal.2013Background
- Gonzales was subject to SVP proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code 6600 et seq. after a 2004 parole-conditions history.
- DA sought access to Atkinson Center outpatient psychotherapy records and for McAndrews to testify about defendant’s statements during therapy.
- Trial court ruled records could be disclosed under the dangerous patient exception and allowed testimony.
- Court of Appeal reversed, finding violation of psychotherapist-patient privilege and federal privacy rights requiring Chapman-style prejudice review.
- California Supreme Court held the 1024 dangerous-patient exception did not justify broad disclosure; error was state-law, applied Watson prejudice standard, not Chapman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 1012/1014 shield parolee therapy records from disclosure? | Gonzales argues privilege bars disclosure to DA and experts. | People contend parole-mandated therapy fits 1012/1014 exceptions for disclosure. | Privilege presumption applies; 1012 cannot authorize broad disclosure. |
| Does the dangerous-patient exception (1024) authorize disclosure of all therapy records? | People rely on 1024 to disclose records to prevent danger. | Gonzales argues 1024 is narrow and not applicable here. | 1024 is narrow; could not justify disclosure of all records in this SVPA proceeding. |
| Does federal privacy law apply to this state-law privilege issue? | People urge federal privacy rights to require reversal if violated. | Gonzales argues no federal privacy violation given state-law context. | No federal constitutional violation found; privacy interests outweighed by state interests only when appropriate. |
| Was the error prejudicial under state law (Watson) or Chapman (federal standard)? | Court of Appeal applied Chapman, requiring reversal if prejudicial beyond reasonable doubt. | State-law Watson standard should apply since no federal constitutional violation. | Watson standard applies; error not prejudicial under Watson. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal.3d 415 (Cal. 1970) (recognizes privacy interest in psychotherapist communications)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1996) (psychotherapist-patient privilege in federal proceedings)
- People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 (Cal. 1991) (limits of dangerous-patient exception and confidential communications)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (state-law prejudicial-error standard)
- Mavroudis v. Superior Court, 102 Cal.App.3d 594 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st) (limitations of 1024 dangerous-patient exception)