dangerous patient exception in California

2013Code, § 1014.) Despite its broad and protective nature, however, “ ‘the psychotherapist-patient privilege is legislatively created and is not absolute.’ ” (People v. Martinez (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 465, 483 (Martinez); Gonzales, at p. 372.) Statutorily- created exceptions include the dangerous patient exception, which provides that “[t]here 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

2013In support of the latter claim, the district attorney relied on the Court of Appeal decision in People v. Martinez (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 465 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 ], which held that records of prior inpatient psychotherapy treatment conducted during a mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) commitment were properly admitted in a subsequent SVPA proceeding. *362 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that although the psychotherapist-patient privilege applied to the records in question, the prosecution was entitled to obtain access to the records under the dangerous patien

2024(See Kevin F., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 183 [defendant told psychotherapist he committed arson and was fascinated with fire; psychotherapist had reasonable cause to believe defendant was a danger to others and the dangerous patient exception applied]; Hopkins, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at pp. 673–674 [defendant’s confession to psychiatrist of a violent robbery was reasonable cause to believe defendant was a danger to others within the meaning of section 1024]; cf. Mathews, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 799 (dis. opn. of Cantil–Sakauye, C.J.) [by its own terms, “the exception set forth in section 1024 i

2024(See Kevin F., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 183 [defendant told psychotherapist he committed arson and was fascinated with fire; psychotherapist had reasonable cause to believe defendant was a danger to others and the dangerous patient exception applied]; Hopkins, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at pp. 673–674 [defendant’s confession to psychiatrist of a violent robbery was reasonable cause to believe defendant was a danger to others within the meaning of section 1024]; cf. Mathews, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 799 (dis. opn. of Cantil–Sakauye, C.J.) [by its own terms, “the exception set forth in section 1024 i

2024(See Kevin F., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 183 [defendant told psychotherapist he committed arson and was fascinated with fire; psychotherapist had reasonable cause to believe defendant was a danger to others and the dangerous patient exception applied]; Hopkins, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at pp. 673–674 [defendant’s confession to psychiatrist of a violent robbery was reasonable cause to believe defendant was a danger to others within the meaning of section 1024]; cf. Mathews, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 799 (dis. opn. of Cantil–Sakauye, C.J.) [by its own terms, “the exception set forth in section 1024 i

2019Similarly, given the severe harm that simple viewing causes to the child victim (Grant, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 477 ; New York v. Ferber (1982) 458 U.S. 747, 757 (Ferber)), a patient who presents no risk of “hands-on” abuse but displays a “hands-off” danger may also have no reasonable expectation in disclosing that he viewed child pornography online under the dangerous patient exception.

2013As we have seen, Evidence Code section 1024 provides that “[tjhere is no privilege ... 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.” Under section 1024, when a therapist who is providing treatment to a patient concludes that the patient is a danger to himself or herself or to others and that disclosure of the contents of a therapy session is necessary to prevent the threa

2013As we have seen, Evidence Code section 1024 provides that “[tjhere is no privilege ... 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.” Under section 1024, when a therapist who is providing treatment to a patient concludes that the patient is a danger to himself or herself or to others and that disclosure of the contents of a therapy session is necessary to prevent the threa

2013Code, § 1024.) This exception “is an expression of the Legislature’s determination that the value of safeguarding confidential psychotherapeutic communications, as great as it is, is outweighed by the public interest 18 in protecting foreseeable victims from physical harm.” (San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1091 (San Diego Trolley).) Evidence Code section 1024 “does not automatically render the psychotherapist-patient privilege inapplicable in SVPA proceedings.” (Gonzales, at pp. 380-381.) But as our high court has “emphasize[d],” that “does not mean that [

2013We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal’s determination that the trial court error in this regard constitutes an error of federal constitutional dimension, and thus we conclude that the prejudicial nature of the error must properly be evaluated under the usual prejudicial error standard applicable to state law error set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], namely, whether it is reasonably probable that the error affected the result.

2013We disagree, however, with the Court of Appeal’s determination that the trial court error in this regard constitutes an error of federal constitutional dimension, and thus we conclude that the prejudicial nature of the error must properly be evaluated under the usual prejudicial error standard applicable to state law error set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], namely, whether it is reasonably probable that the error affected the result.

2005(See Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435, 449 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 834 P.2d 786 ].) 34 Evidence Code section 956.5 now permits the disclosure of communications, otherwise privileged by the attorney-client privilege, when disclosure “is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in the death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.” (Added by Stats. 1993, ch. 982, § 8, p. 5622.) 35 We reject out of hand defendant’s further claim that “the trial court did not give defense counsel a chance to object.” The record indicates coun

2005(See Menendez v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 435, 449 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 834 P.2d 786 ].) 34 Evidence Code section 956.5 now permits the disclosure of communications, otherwise privileged by the attorney-client privilege, when disclosure “is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in the death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.” (Added by Stats. 1993, ch. 982, § 8, p. 5622.) 35 We reject out of hand defendant’s further claim that “the trial court did not give defense counsel a chance to object.” The record indicates coun

1991(See Stickel v. Harris (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 575, 591 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 88 ]; Fogarty v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 316, 320 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 594 ],) 7 The psychotherapist-patient privilege in Evidence Code section 1014, as well as the dangerous-patient exception in section 1024, are both part of division 8 of the Evidence Code.

1991(See Stickel v. Harris (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 575, 591 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 88 ]; Fogarty v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 316, 320 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 594 ],) 7 The psychotherapist-patient privilege in Evidence Code section 1014, as well as the dangerous-patient exception in section 1024, are both part of division 8 of the Evidence Code.

1991(See Stickel v. Harris (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 575, 591 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 88 ]; Fogarty v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 316, 320 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 594 ],) 7 The psychotherapist-patient privilege in Evidence Code section 1014, as well as the dangerous-patient exception in section 1024, are both part of division 8 of the Evidence Code.

1991(See Stickel v. Harris (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 575, 591 [ 242 Cal.Rptr. 88 ]; Fogarty v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 316, 320 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 594 ],) 7 The psychotherapist-patient privilege in Evidence Code section 1014, as well as the dangerous-patient exception in section 1024, are both part of division 8 of the Evidence Code.