Cal. Codes » Evidence Code
California Codes

Cal. Evidence Code § 1024 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: Mathews v. Becerra, 455 P.3d 277 (Cal. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mathews v. Becerra, 455 P.3d 277 (Cal. 2019). · cites it 6× “All statutory exceptions to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, including the dangerous patient exception (Evid. Code, § 1024), still apply. Finally, because plaintiffs may proceed on their state constitutional claim, we have no need to reach plaintiffs’ privacy claim under…”
People v. Gonzales, 296 P.3d 945 (Cal. 2013). · cites it 6× “) The trial court concluded that disclosure of such records to the prosecution and its expert witnesses in an SVPA proceeding was permissible under the dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege (Evid. Code, § 1024) and ordered the requested disclosure.”
State v. Orr, 969 A.2d 750 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 4× “[16] The California Evidence Code, § 1024, provides: "There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another…”
People v. Wharton, 809 P.2d 290 (Cal. 1991). · cites it 2× “comment, Evid. Code, § 1024, p. 199.) In view of the foregoing, it is manifest that the trial court erred in rejecting defendant's claim of psychotherapist-patient privilege on the basis of the "dangerous patient" exception.”
Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “1986); Cal. Evid.Code § 1024; People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.”
San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “) However, as important as psychotherapeutic confidentiality is, even its value may be outweighed by other societal interests. Thus, where a patient is dangerous and disclosure of confidential communication is necessary to prevent harm, the psychotherapist-patient privilege has…”
People v. Memro, 700 P.2d 446 (Cal. 1985). · cites it 2× “" (Evid. Code, § 1024.) *688 Two Courts of Appeal have dealt with similar discovery requests in the Pitchess context.”
People v. Clark, 789 P.2d 127 (Cal. 1990). · cites it 2× “Whether the psychotherapist "reasonably believes" (Evid. Code, § 1024) that revelation of the communication is necessary also becomes irrelevant once the communication has lost its confidential status.”
Lemelle v. Superior Court, 77 Cal. App. 3d 148 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Quite obviously the purpose of the section is to free the psychotherapist from the strictures of confidentiality and permit him to make disclosure in the factual circumstances specified, i.e., when he has reasonable cause to believe his patient is in such mental or emotional…”
People v. Cordova, 358 P.3d 518 (Cal. 2015). “” (Evid. Code, § 1024.) Here, the offer of proof indicated that the therapist took the threat by defendant, who was out of custody, seriously enough to warn its target, leading to the revocation of defendant’s bail.”
People v. Felix, 112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “2d 334 ; Evid.Code, § 1024.) This is a narrow exception to the psychotherapistpatient privilege and the psychologist may be required to testify against the patient in a criminal trial.”
United States v. Steven Gene Chase, 340 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003). “See Cal. Evid. Code § 1024 (“There is no privilege under this article if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.