(a) A victim, a victim counselor without the consent of the victim, or a minor or incapacitated victim without the consent of a custodial guardian or a guardian ad litem appointed upon application of either party, cannot be compelled to give testimony or to produce records concerning confidential communications for any purpose in any criminal proceeding.
(b) A victim counselor or a victim cannot be compelled to provide testimony in any civil or criminal proceeding that would identify the name, address, location, or telephone number of a safe house, abuse shelter, or other facility that provided temporary emergency shelter to the victim of the offense or transaction that is the subject of the proceeding unless the facility is a party to the proceeding.
(c) The confidential communication privilege of a victim counselor with respect to communications made between the counselor and the victim shall terminate upon the death of the victim.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-598, p. 1040, §2; Acts 1995, No. 95-536, p. 1094, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1997–2018 · leading case:
Brooks v. State, 33 So. 3d 1262 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).
Brooks v. State, 33 So. 3d 1262 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “*1264 "THE COURT: Well tell me how you get around Section 34-8A-21, Section 15-23-42 and Rule 503? "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, those are not absolute privileges.”
R.D. v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Counsel for the Sunshine Center objected on grounds that the records were protected by a statute granting a confidential communication privilege to victim counselors, Ala.Code 1975, § 15-23-42, but agreed to provide the records to the court for an in camera review.”
Doe v. Old Dominion Univ., 289 F. Supp. 3d 744 (E.D. Va. 2018).
“§ 77-38-202 (West 2017) ("It is the purpose of this act to enhance and promote the mental, physical and emotional recovery of victims of sexual assault and to protect the information given by victims to sexual assault counselors from being disclosed.”
RD v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Counsel for the Sunshine Center objected on grounds that the records were protected by a statute granting a confidential communication privilege to victim counselors, Ala.Code 1975, § 15-23-42, but agreed to provide the records to the court for an in camera review.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.