Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 1 — Juries and Witnesses; part 78B-1-1 — Jury and Witness Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-1-137 (2026)

Witnesses -- Privileged communications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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:

Neither a wife nor a husband may 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.
This exception does not apply:
to a civil action or proceeding by one spouse against the other;
to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one spouse against the other;
to the crime of deserting or neglecting to support a spouse or child;
to any civil or criminal proceeding for abuse or neglect committed against the child of either spouse; or
if otherwise specifically provided by law.
An attorney cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to the attorney or any advice given regarding the communication in the course of the professional employment. An attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk cannot be examined, without the consent of the attorney, concerning any fact, the knowledge of which has been acquired as an employee.
A member of the clergy or priest cannot, without the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to either of them in their professional character in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which they belong.
A physician, surgeon, or physician assistant cannot, without the consent of the patient, be examined in a civil action as to any information acquired in attending the patient which was necessary to enable the physician, surgeon, or physician assistant to prescribe or act for the patient. However, this privilege shall be waived by the patient in an action in which the patient places the patient's medical condition at issue as an element or factor of the claim or defense. Under those circumstances, a physician, surgeon, or physician assistant who has prescribed for or treated that patient for the medical condition at issue may provide information, interviews, reports, records, statements, memoranda, or other data relating to the patient's medical condition and treatment which are placed at issue.
A public officer cannot be examined as to communications made in official confidence when the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.
A sexual assault counselor as defined in Section 77-38-203 cannot, without the consent of the victim, be examined in a civil or criminal proceeding as to any confidential communication as defined in Section 77-38-203 made by the victim.
A victim advocate as defined in Section 77-38-403 may not, without the written consent of the victim, or the victim's guardian or conservator if the guardian or conservator is not the accused, be examined in a civil or criminal proceeding as to a confidential communication, as defined in Section 77-38-403, unless the victim advocate is a criminal justice system victim advocate, as defined in Section 77-38-403, and is examined in camera by a court to determine whether the confidential communication is privileged.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case: State v. Patterson, 2013 UT App 11 (Utah Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Patterson, 2013 UT App 11 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “2 (Utah 1994) (interpreting the privilege as it appeared in former Utah Code section 78-24-8, which is virtually identical to the current Utah Code section 78B-1-137); see also Utah. R. Evid.”
Terry v. Bacon, 269 P.3d 188 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client between the client and the client's .”
Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 289 P.3d 369 (Utah 2012). · cites it 2× “" Even if IHC is correct, it is still necessary for us to address the propriety of IHC's meetings with the Employed Physicians because of IHC's ex parte meetings with Dr.”
Chard v. Chard, 2019 UT App 209 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “2019) (“An attorney cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to the attorney or any advice given regarding the communication in the course of the professional employment.”
State v. Samora, 2021 UT App 29 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “I, § 12; Utah Code Ann. § 78B-1-137(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2017).”
Krahenbuhl v. The Cottle Firm, 2018 UT App 138 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶8 The attorney-client privilege, recognized in rule 504(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence and Utah Code section 78B-1-137(2), "is intended to encourage candor between attorney and client and promote the best possible representation of the client.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Automated Geographic Reference Ctr., 2008 UT 88 (Utah 2008). “Are Not Privileged Communications Between a Governmental Entity and an Attorney, and Therefore, Are Not Exempt Under Section 63G-2-305(18) of GRAMA ¶ 32 Section 63G-2-805(18) protects "records of communications between a governmental entity and an attorney representing,…”
State v. Mauti, 3 A.3d 624 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010). “504(b); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-1-137 (2010); Va.Code Ann.”
— Utah Code § 78B-1-137(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Samora, 2021 UT App 29 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “I, § 12; Utah Code Ann. § 78B-1-137(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2017).”
— Utah Code § 78B-1-137(2) — 4 cases
Terry v. Bacon, 269 P.3d 188 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client between the client and the client's .”
Chard v. Chard, 2019 UT App 209 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “2019) (“An attorney cannot, without the consent of the client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to the attorney or any advice given regarding the communication in the course of the professional employment.”
Krahenbuhl v. The Cottle Firm, 2018 UT App 138 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “¶8 The attorney-client privilege, recognized in rule 504(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence and Utah Code section 78B-1-137(2), "is intended to encourage candor between attorney and client and promote the best possible representation of the client.”
S. Utah Wilderness All. v. Automated Geographic Reference Ctr., 2008 UT 88 (Utah 2008). “Are Not Privileged Communications Between a Governmental Entity and an Attorney, and Therefore, Are Not Exempt Under Section 63G-2-305(18) of GRAMA ¶ 32 Section 63G-2-805(18) protects "records of communications between a governmental entity and an attorney representing,…”
— Utah Code § 78B-1-137(3) — 1 case
State v. Patterson, 2013 UT App 11 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “2 (Utah 1994) (interpreting the privilege as it appeared in former Utah Code section 78-24-8, which is virtually identical to the current Utah Code section 78B-1-137); see also Utah. R. Evid.”
— Utah Code § 78B-1-137(4) — 1 case
Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc., 289 P.3d 369 (Utah 2012). “" Even if IHC is correct, it is still necessary for us to address the propriety of IHC's meetings with the Employed Physicians because of IHC's ex parte meetings with Dr.”
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.