Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 9-203 (2026)

Confidential relations and communications.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Confidential relations and communications.

There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate; therefore, a person cannot be examined as a witness in the following cases:

(1) A husband cannot be examined for or against his wife, without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband, without his consent; nor can either, during the marriage or afterwards, be, without the consent of the other, examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage; but this exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by violence of one against the person of the other, nor does this exception apply to any case of physical injury to a child where the injury has been caused as a result of physical abuse or neglect by one or both of the parents, nor does this exception apply to any case of lewd and lascivious conduct or attempted lewd and lascivious conduct where either party would otherwise be protected by this privilege.

(2) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon, in the course of professional employment. The word client used herein shall be deemed to include a person, a corporation or an association.

(3) A clergyman or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to him in his professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs.

(4) A physician or surgeon cannot, without the consent of his patient, be examined in a civil action as to any information acquired in attending the patient that was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for the patient; provided, however, that:

(a) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to preclude physicians from reporting of and testifying at all cases of physical injury to children, where it appears the injury has been caused as a result of physical abuse or neglect by a parent, guardian or legal custodian of the child.

(b) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to preclude physicians from testifying at all cases of physical injury to a person where it appears the injury has been caused as a result of domestic violence.

(c) After the death of a patient, in any action involving the validity of any will or other instrument executed, or claimed to have been executed, by him, conveying or transferring any real or personal property or incurring any financial obligation, such physician or surgeon may testify to the mental or physical condition of such patient and in so testifying may disclose information acquired by him concerning such patient that was necessary to enable him to prescribe or act for such deceased.

(d) Where any person, or his heirs or representatives, brings an action to recover damages for personal injuries or death, such action shall be deemed to constitute a consent by the person bringing such action that any physician who has prescribed for or treated said injured or deceased person and whose testimony is material in the action may testify.

(e) If the patient is dead and during his lifetime had not given such consent, the bringing of an action by a beneficiary, assignee or payee or by the legal representative of the insured to recover on any life, health or accident insurance policy shall constitute a consent by such beneficiary, assignee, payee or legal representative to the testimony of any physician who attended the deceased.

(5) A public officer cannot be examined as to communications made to him in official confidence when the public interests would suffer by disclosure.

(6) Any certificated counselor, psychologist, or psychological examiner duly appointed, regularly employed, and designated in such capacity by any public or private school in this state for the purpose of counseling students shall be immune from disclosing, without the consent of the student, any communication made by any student so counseled or examined in any civil or criminal action to which such student is a party. Such matters so communicated shall be privileged and protected against disclosure.

(7) Any parent, guardian, or legal custodian shall not be forced to disclose any communication made to such parent, guardian, or legal custodian by their minor child or ward concerning matters in any civil or criminal action to which such child or ward is a party. Such matters so communicated shall be privileged and protected against disclosure; however, this section does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by violence of one against the person of the other, nor does this section apply to any case of physical injury to a minor child where the injury has been caused as a result of physical abuse or neglect by one or both of the parents, guardians, or legal custodians.

(8)(a) As used in this subsection:

(i) "First responder" means:

1. A peace officer as defined in section 19-5101(d), Idaho Code, when employed by a city, county, or the Idaho state police;

2. A firefighter as defined in section 59-1302(16), Idaho Code;

3. A volunteer emergency responder as defined in section 72-102, Idaho Code;

4. An emergency medical service (EMS) provider or an ambulance-based clinician certified pursuant to chapter 9, title 46, Idaho Code; and

5. An emergency communications officer as defined in section 19-5101(f), Idaho Code.

(ii) "Peer support counseling session" means a meeting conducted by a peer support specialist, which meeting is held in response to a critical incident, traumatic event, or other personal or professional wellness issue.

(iii) "Peer support specialist" means a person designated by a public agency employing first responders to lead, moderate, or assist in a peer support counseling session.

(b) Any peer support specialist or participant in a peer support counseling session cannot disclose and shall not be forced to disclose a communication made during or arising out of a peer support counseling session without the consent of the person who made the communication or about whom the communication was made, unless the communication:

(i) Involves a threat of suicide or a threat to commit a criminal act;

(ii) Involves information required by law to be reported; or

(iii) Is an admission of criminal conduct.

(c) Any disclosure permitted by paragraph (b) of this subsection that is made during or as part of court proceedings is subject to the rules of the Idaho supreme court.

(9) A person employed by or volunteering at a nongovernmental domestic or sexual violence program shall not, without the written and signed consent of the recipient of services, be required to or compelled to disclose any communication made between the person in the course of employment or volunteer services for the domestic or sexual violence program and a recipient of the program’s services or to disclose information or records about a recipient of the services of a domestic or sexual violence program, provided that disclosure of communications during or as part of court proceedings is subject to the rules of the Idaho supreme court. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to communications made to a provider or employee during medical services, medical procedures, medical exams, medical evaluations, or forensic interviews.

(10) For purposes of this section:

(a) "Recipient" means any individual who has received or inquired about receiving services or assistance from a domestic or sexual violence program, including shelter, advocacy, counseling, or other services offered by a domestic or sexual violence program.

(b) "Domestic or sexual violence program" means any nonprofit organization, nongovernmental organization, private entity, or tribe or tribal organization that has as its primary purpose the operation of shelters or supportive services for victims of domestic or sexual violence and their dependents or counseling, advocacy, or self-help services to victims of domestic or sexual violence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases, 1953–2018 · leading case: Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 32× “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

State v. Iwakiri, 682 P.2d 571 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 8× “We will consider the latter allegation first. I. WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE The trial court was correct in ruling that the 1977 phone conversations between appellant and Aldridge were privileged.”

United States v. Banks, 556 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “504(d)(1) (eliminating privilege in all child abuse cases) and Idaho Code Ann. § 9-203 (precluding use of the privilege in "any case of physical injury to a child where the injury has been cause as a result of physical abuse or neglect by one or both of the parents" and "any…”

Pearce v. Ollie, 826 P.2d 888 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 18× “So far as is known, this was the first instance in Idaho where there has occurred an outright usurpation of a patient's treating doctors by defense counsel in flagrant violation of the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, the doing of which is prohibited by I.C.…”

Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980). · cites it 2× “§ 13-90-107 (1973); Idaho Code § 9-203 (Supp. 1979); Mich. Comp.”

Erick Virgil Hall v. State, 315 P.3d 798 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 6× “The attorney-client privilege is codified at I.C. § 9-203, which provides that because “[t]here are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence .”

State v. Jones, 873 P.2d 122 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 4× “504 and I.C. § 9-203, governing marital privilege.”

Skelton v. Spencer, 565 P.2d 1374 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 6× “I.C. § 9-203 provides in pertinent part: “9-203.”

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 103 F.3d 1140 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “See Idaho Code § 9-203 (7) (1990 & Supp. 1995); Minn.”

Caldero v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 562 P.2d 791 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 9-203 provides: "There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate; therefore, a person can not be examined as a witness in the following cases: * * *.”

Compton v. Compton, 612 P.2d 1175 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 2× “V Wife also complains that the court erred in admitting the affidavit of the attorney who represented wife during negotiations for the property settlement agreement.”

In Re the Est. of Goan, 366 P.2d 831 (Idaho 1961). · cites it 8× “Such objection goes only to the weight or credibility of such evidence and is without merit, for if the evidence is otherwise admissible the weight to be given or credibility of the evidence is generally for the trier of the facts.”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 9-203(1) — 5 cases

State v. Fowler, 617 P.2d 850 (Idaho 1980).

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

State v. Nab, 742 P.2d 423 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987).

State v. Chaffin, 448 P.2d 243 (Idaho 1968).

Still v. State, 544 P.2d 1145 (Idaho 1976).

— Idaho Code § 9-203(1)(b) — 1 case

Wood v. Pillsbury Co. (In Re Wood), 38 B.R. 375 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1983).

— Idaho Code § 9-203(2) — 8 cases

State v. Iwakiri, 682 P.2d 571 (Idaho 1984). “We will consider the latter allegation first. I. WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE The trial court was correct in ruling that the 1977 phone conversations between appellant and Aldridge were privileged.”

Compton v. Compton, 612 P.2d 1175 (Idaho 1980). “V Wife also complains that the court erred in admitting the affidavit of the attorney who represented wife during negotiations for the property settlement agreement.”

State v. Robins, 431 P.3d 260 (Idaho 2018).

Erick Virgil Hall v. State, 315 P.3d 798 (Idaho 2013). “The attorney-client privilege is codified at I.C. § 9-203, which provides that because “[t]here are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence .”

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

— Idaho Code § 9-203(3) — 2 cases

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

Angleton v. Angleton, 370 P.2d 788 (Idaho 1962).

— Idaho Code § 9-203(4) — 4 cases

Pearce v. Ollie, 826 P.2d 888 (Idaho 1992). “So far as is known, this was the first instance in Idaho where there has occurred an outright usurpation of a patient's treating doctors by defense counsel in flagrant violation of the confidential relationship between doctor and patient, the doing of which is prohibited by I.C.…”

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

In Re the Est. of Goan, 366 P.2d 831 (Idaho 1961). “Such objection goes only to the weight or credibility of such evidence and is without merit, for if the evidence is otherwise admissible the weight to be given or credibility of the evidence is generally for the trier of the facts.”

State v. Bounds, 258 P.2d 751 (Idaho 1953).

— Idaho Code § 9-203(4)(A) — 1 case

State v. Rossignol, 215 P.3d 538 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009).

— Idaho Code § 9-203(4)(C) — 1 case

— Idaho Code § 9-203(5) — 1 case

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

— Idaho Code § 9-203(6) — 2 cases

Dalton v. Idaho Dairy Prods. Comm'n, 684 P.2d 983 (Idaho 1984).

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

— Idaho Code § 9-203(7) — 1 case

Matter of Contempt of Wright, 700 P.2d 40 (Idaho 1985). “2d 788 (1962) (decided on the basis of I.C. § 9-203); 8 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 2394-2396 (McNaughton Rev.”

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.