(1) The incident of privileged communication between patient and physician, between patient and registered professional nurse, or between any person licensed pursuant to article 245 of title 12, or certified or licensed school psychologist and client, which is the basis for a report pursuant to section 19-3-304, shall not be a ground for excluding evidence in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report pursuant to this part 3. In addition, privileged communication shall not apply to any discussion of any future misconduct or of any other past misconduct that could be the basis for any other report under section 19-3- 304.
(2) The privileged communication between husband and wife shall not be a ground for excluding evidence in any judicial proceeding resulting from a report pursuant to this part 3.
Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 771, § 1, effective October 1. L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 699, § 6, effective June 7. L. 90: Entire section amended, p. 1024, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2008: (1) amended, p. 1893, § 65, effective August 5. L. 2019: (1) amended, (HB 19- 1172), ch. 136, p. 1682, § 113, effective October 1.
Editor's note: This section was contained in a title that was repealed and reenacted in 1987. Provisions of this section, as it existed in 1987, are similar to those contained in § 19-10- 112 as said section existed in 1986, the year prior to the repeal and reenactment of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
Dill v. People, 927 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1996).
Dill v. People, 927 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1996).
· cites it 46× “Section 19-3-311 provides that the psychologist-client privilege does not apply to any communication that is the basis for a report under section 19-3-304, 8B C.”
D.A.S. v. People, 863 P.2d 291 (Colo. 1993).
· cites it 10× “), section 19-3-311, which specifically lists evidence not privileged, is entirely consistent with this legislative intent.”
People v. Kyle, 111 P.3d 491 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Section 19-3-311, C.R.S.2003, provides that the psychologist-client privilege does not apply to any communication that is the basis for a report of child abuse under § 19-3-304, C.”
L.A.N. Ex Rel. L.A.N. v. L.M.B., 292 P.3d 942 (Colo. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Section 19-3-311 specifically abrogates the psychotherapist-patient privilege with respect to communications between a client and a licensed mental health professional that form the basis of a report of child abuse or neglect under section 19-3-804.”
People v. Bowman, 812 P.2d 725 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “§ 19-3-311, C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.). Discussion during the committee hearings on this amendment confirms that the inclusion of mental health professionals in this section was specifically intended to abrogate a testimonial privilege that previously existed for these individuals.”
B.B. v. People, 785 P.2d 132 (Colo. 1990).
“§ 19-10-112 has been repealed and reenacted and now appears at § 19-3-311, 8B C.R.S. (1989 Supp.). This basis of the trial court’s ruling was not addressed by the court of appeals.”
People v. Dill, 904 P.2d 1367 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “1991), defendant argues that since the investigating detective reported- the allegations of sexual abuse of the victim to the department of social services, the victim’s psychologist-patient privilege was abrogated by § 19-3-311(1), C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.), which applies to…”
In Re Marriage of Bozarth, 779 P.2d 1346 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 2× “(1986) (privilege inapplicable in child abuse proceeding); § 19-3-311, 8B C.R.S. (1988) (privilege inapplicable in dependency and neglect proceeding).”
People ex rel. T.S., 781 P.2d 130 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “However, § 19-3-311, C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.) provides that “privileged communication between patient and physician .”
Human Servs., Inc. v. Woodard, 765 P.2d 1052 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“8B) (currently § 19-3-311 (1987 Cum. Supp.)) specifically abrogates the physician/patient, nurse/patient, and husband/wife testimonial privileges for purposes of the Child Protection Act.”
Peo v. Wuthrich (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“”); see also §§ 19-3-311(1), -304(1)(a), (2)(p), C.R.S.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-3-311(1) — 4 cases
D.A.S. v. People, 863 P.2d 291 (Colo. 1993).
“), section 19-3-311, which specifically lists evidence not privileged, is entirely consistent with this legislative intent.”
Dill v. People, 927 P.2d 1315 (Colo. 1996).
“Section 19-3-311 provides that the psychologist-client privilege does not apply to any communication that is the basis for a report under section 19-3-304, 8B C.”
People v. Dill, 904 P.2d 1367 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
“1991), defendant argues that since the investigating detective reported- the allegations of sexual abuse of the victim to the department of social services, the victim’s psychologist-patient privilege was abrogated by § 19-3-311(1), C.R.S. (1994 Cum.Supp.), which applies to…”
Peo v. Wuthrich (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“”); see also §§ 19-3-311(1), -304(1)(a), (2)(p), C.R.S.”
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.