102 A.3d 295
Md.2014Background
- Jonathan Johnson was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor after the victim J.C. alleged anal rape; Johnson denied the assault and blamed the victim's grandfather.
- J.C. had received counseling at National Pike Health Center; Johnson subpoenaed J.C.’s mental‑health records by trial subpoena duces tecum.
- National Pike moved for a protective order asserting the psychotherapist/social‑worker privileges; the trial judge denied defense access and refused an in camera review, calling the request a “fishing expedition.”
- On appeal the Court of Special Appeals reversed (one judge dissenting), concluding the defense proffer at least warranted an in camera review to assess relevance to credibility.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and reversed the intermediate court, holding that the defense proffer here was insufficient under Goldsmith to justify in camera review.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument (Petitioner) | Johnson's Argument (Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional trial rights can overcome a victim’s psychotherapist/social‑worker privilege | Privilege should be absolute for pretrial discovery; to abrogate privilege at trial defendant must present strong, admissible proof showing records likely contain exculpatory evidence | Defendant argued Sixth Amendment rights (compulsory process, confrontation) can trump privilege and only a "plausible showing" is required to obtain in camera review | Court: Yes, trial rights may overcome privilege in some cases; privilege not absolute at trial, but defendant must meet Goldsmith threshold |
| What preliminary showing (proffer) is required to trigger an in camera review of privileged mental‑health records | Require a high threshold: credible evidence, perhaps admissible under the Rules, that shows records likely contain exculpatory material | Follow Ritchie: defendant need only make a plausible showing that records are material and favorable to defense | Court: Adopt Goldsmith standard — defendant must show a reasonable likelihood the privileged records contain exculpatory information; speculative or hypothetical assertions insufficient |
| Whether defense proffer that victim "may be delusional / have hallucinations" justified in camera review | Such generalized, speculative assertions are insufficient and amount to a fishing expedition | Proffering mental‑health diagnoses impacting credibility is enough to warrant in camera review because defendant cannot know contents beforehand | Court: Proffer here was speculative (multiple "ifs") and did not meet the Goldsmith threshold; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Remedy and procedure when threshold met | Petitioner favored strict safeguards or requiring privilege waiver | Respondent favored in camera review to protect privacy while allowing defense access | Court: If threshold met, trial judge must conduct an in camera review (and may enlist therapist’s help); evaluation is fact‑specific and within trial court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md. 112 (1995) (establishes threshold rule: to abrogate privilege at trial defendant must show a reasonable likelihood privileged records contain exculpatory information)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognizes psychotherapist‑patient privilege under federal law and rejects broad balancing test in civil context)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (defendant need only make a plausible showing that records contain material, favorable evidence when defendant cannot know contents)
- Fisher v. State, 128 Md. App. 79 (1999) (Court of Special Appeals: speculative proffers do not meet threshold; in camera review not required absent sufficient showing)
- People v. Stanaway, 521 N.W.2d 557 (Mich. 1994) (illustrative of proffers that relied on concrete facts to support a claim that psychotherapy records likely contained exculpatory or impeachment material)