317 P.3d 878
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- State appeals district court's protective order granting Defendant's motion to bar disclosure of confidential counseling communications to a licensed social worker.
- Defendant faced four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor involving his daughter; the State sought to introduce Stearns' counseling records.
- District court held communications with Stearns privileged under Rule 11-504; ex-wife's participation did not waive privilege; Stearns not a mandatory reporter under §32A-4-3(A).
- District court found Rule 11-504(D)(4) exception inapplicable because neither Stearns nor ex-wife was subject to mandatory reporting.
- State sought reconsideration; court allowed ex-wife to testify about timing of counseling but barred revealing the contents of communications and reasons for seeking counseling.
- Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11-504(B) privilege applies to Defendant's counseling communications. | State argues the mandatory reporting exception defeats privilege. | Defendant contends social worker and ex-wife were not subject to mandatory reporting; communications are privileged. | Defendant has privilege; 11-504(D)(4) exception not applicable. |
| Whether mandatory reporting in §32A-4-3(A) applies to the social worker or ex-wife. | State asserts 'every person' includes social worker and ex-wife who suspected abuse. | Defendant contends the provision does not apply to these individuals in this context. | Neither the social worker nor ex-wife is subject to the mandatory reporting requirement. |
| Whether the social worker acted in an official capacity for §32A-4-3(A) purposes. | State argues the social worker acted in official capacity by providing counseling. | Defendant argues 'official capacity' does not include private mental health professionals; counseling context does not trigger official capacity. | Social worker did not act in official capacity under §32A-4-3(A). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryan, 2006-NMCA-044, 139 N.M. 354, 132 P.3d 1040 (NMCA) (de novo review of Rule 11-504 and statutory construction)
- State v. Romero, 2006-NMSC-039, 140 N.M. 299, 142 P.3d 887 (NMSC) (statutory construction standard of review)
- In re Candice Y., 2000-NMCA-035, 128 N.M. 813, 999 P.2d 1045 (NMCA) (counselor disclosure and impact of reporting statutes)
- Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, 148 N.M. 761, 242 P.3d 328 (NMSC) (reaffirmed broad reading of 'every person' in reporting statute)
- Wilcox v. New Mexico Board of Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine, 2012-NMCA-106, 288 P.3d 902 (NMCA) (ejusdem generis application and statutory interpretation nuances)
- Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, 285 P.3d 622 (NMSC) (ejusdem generis and statutory structure considerations)
- Ogden, 1994-NMSC-029, 118 N.M. 234, 880 P.2d 845 (NMSC) (rule of lenity and criminal statute interpretation)