State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr., 872 N.W.2d 252

Background

Defendant Jerry Expose Jr., on probation, made violent statements about a caseworker (D.P.) during mandated anger-management sessions with therapist N.M.; N.M. reported the statements to her supervisor (D.P.) and police under Minnesota’s duty-to-warn statute.
State charged Expose with making terroristic threats; at trial the State called N.M. who testified about the content and her assessment that the threats were serious; D.P. and a critical-incident-team member also testified about what N.M. had reported.
Expose objected at trial under the therapist-client privilege (Minn. Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(g)); the district court admitted N.M.’s testimony finding a “threats exception” to the privilege.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the privilege bars therapist testimony about client statements and also bars third-party testimony conveying therapist-acquired confidences; the Supreme Court granted review.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held: (1) pretrial forfeiture rule did not bar a trial objection to privilege; (2) no statutory "threats exception" to the therapist-client privilege exists; (3) the privilege does not extend to third-party testimony recounting therapist disclosures; but (4) admission of N.M.’s testimony was not harmless because her testimony materially influenced the jury’s verdict—requiring reversal.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Expose's Argument	Held
Whether defendant forfeited the therapist-privilege objection by not raising it pretrial	Rule 10.01 requires pretrial motion for matters decidable without trial; privilege could be raised pretrial	Privilege application is fact-dependent and may require trial testimony; objection at trial preserved	No forfeiture: Rule 10.01 does not require pretrial objection when privilege application depends on trial facts
Whether therapist-client privilege contains a "threats exception"	Duty-to-warn statute (Minn. Stat. § 148.975) implies therapists must disclose threats, so privilege should yield	Privilege and duty-to-warn serve different functions; Legislature did not create an exception in the privilege statute	No threats exception: statute’s text and legislative choices show no implicit exception
Whether therapist-client privilege bars third-party testimony conveying therapist-acquired confidences	State: privilege protects confidentiality; should preclude admission through therapist or intermediaries	Expose: therapist’s duty of confidence differs from evidentiary privilege; statute addresses therapist competency only	Privilege does not extend to third-party witnesses who independently testify about what they were told by the therapist
Whether erroneous admission of therapist’s testimony was harmless error	State: D.P.’s testimony conveyed the substance of the threats so error was harmless	Expose: N.M.’s first-hand testimony was the primary evidence of content and mens rea, so error was prejudicial	Not harmless: N.M.’s testimony substantially influenced the verdict; conviction reversed and remanded

Key Cases Cited

State v. Heaney, 689 N.W.2d 168 (Minn. 2004) (standard of review and treatment of privileges)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (different statutory wording implies different legislative choices)
State v. Staat, 192 N.W.2d 192 (Minn. 1971) (physician-patient privilege does not bar third-party testimony absent agency)
County of Dakota v. Cameron, 839 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2013) (cannot add words to an unambiguous statute)
State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 2011) (harmless-error standard distinct from sufficiency analysis)
State v. Sanders, 775 N.W.2d 883 (Minn. 2009) (error requires reversal only if it substantially influenced the verdict)