(a) A victim does not waive the protections afforded by this article by testifying in court about the crime.
(1) However, if the victim partially discloses the contents of a confidential communication in the course of testifying, then either party may request the court to rule that justice requires the protections of this section be waived, to the extent they apply to that portion of the communication.
(2) Any waiver shall apply only to the extent necessary to require any witness to respond to counsel’s questions concerning the confidential communication that are relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(b) A victim counselor cannot waive the protections afforded to a victim under this section. However, if a victim brings suit against a victim counselor or the agency, business, or organization in which the victim counselor was employed or served as a volunteer at the time of the counseling relationship and the suit alleges malpractice during the counseling relationship, the victim counselor may testify or produce records regarding confidential communications with the victim and is not liable for doing so.
(Acts 1987, No. 87-598, p. 1040, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1997–1997 · leading case:
R.D. v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
R.D. v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Subsequently, the trial court reviewed the tapes and determined that because the State *785 had examined Lanier on rebuttal regarding the details of the children’s complaints, Ala. Code 1975, § 15-23-43(a)(l) applied, and that the protections afforded counselors by § 15-23-42…”
RD v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Subsequently, the trial court reviewed the tapes and determined that because the State *785 had examined Lanier on rebuttal regarding the details of the children's complaints, Ala. Code 1975, § 15-23-43(a)(1) applied, and that the protections afforded counselors by § 15-23-42…”
— Ala. Code § 15-23-43(a)(1) — 1 case
RD v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
“Subsequently, the trial court reviewed the tapes and determined that because the State *785 had examined Lanier on rebuttal regarding the details of the children's complaints, Ala. Code 1975, § 15-23-43(a)(1) applied, and that the protections afforded counselors by § 15-23-42…”
— Ala. Code § 15-23-43(a)(l) — 1 case
R.D. v. State, 706 So. 2d 770 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).
“Subsequently, the trial court reviewed the tapes and determined that because the State *785 had examined Lanier on rebuttal regarding the details of the children’s complaints, Ala. Code 1975, § 15-23-43(a)(l) applied, and that the protections afforded counselors by § 15-23-42…”
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.