Nielsen v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 20 June 1997 |
Docket Number | No. A077931,A077931 |
Citation | 55 Cal.App.4th 1150,64 Cal.Rptr.2d 566 |
Parties | , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4734, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7813 Brian Alan NIELSEN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Napa County, Respondent. David DANIELSON, et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Thomas L. Gill, Favaro, Lavezzo, Gill, Caretti & Heppell, Vallejo; Solano County Public Defender, Marvin Brookner, Public Defender, and Robert Q. Warshawsky, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner Brian Alan Nielsen.
No appearance for Respondent Superior Court.
Napa County Public Defender, David Murray, Deputy Public Defender; and Law Offices of Linda K. Epley, Linda K. Epley, Emeryville, for David Wayne Danielson.
In this writ proceeding, we review an order granting discovery of the psychiatric records of a defendant to his codefendants.
Petitioner Brian Nielsen and codefendants David Danielson and Gary Danielson are jointly charged with the murder of Richard Holman and the special circumstances that the murder was committed in the course of a burglary and robbery. Petitioner is charged with the actual killing. The People are seeking the death penalty as to both petitioner and David Danielson but not as to Gary Danielson.
According to her testimony before the grand jury in 1995, Barbara Holman answered the doorbell at her residence in Napa on March 30, 1990, at about 8 p.m. Three men, strangers to her, were at the door. One of the men asked for her husband, Dr. Holman, and when admitted asked to use the telephone. This man repeatedly stabbed Dr. Holman and directed a second suspect to tie up Mrs. Holman. The third suspect was in a bedroom of the house where he was apparently filling a pillow slip with items belonging to the Holmans.
Petitioner and the Danielsons were not implicated in these events until 1993 when Renee Olivera, who had married petitioner in 1990 and divorced him in 1993, contacted the authorities. As a result of the information she provided, Barbara Holman was shown photographs of the three men and identified petitioner as the man who stabbed her husband.
On July 11, 1996, Gary Danielson subpoenaed petitioner's psychiatric records from the Shasta County Mental Health Department. The subpoena requested all documents "relating to any and all counseling, testing, medical treatment (including treatment for alcohol and substance abuse), or referrals for counseling, testing, or medical treatment rendered by the ... facility or any representative thereof, of Brian Nielson [sic]... including but not limited to correspondence, notes, memoranda, statements, reports, photographs, and any communications of any nature or type." In an affidavit in support of the subpoena, attorney for Gary Danielson stated that he was informed and believed that either the prosecution or petitioner's defense team will call petitioner as a witness in the guilt or penalty phases of the case. He based this on the belief that petitioner would enter a deal with the prosecution to testify against the codefendants at the guilt phase or might be compelled to testify at the penalty phase to save his life. He was also of the belief that petitioner's testimony at any penalty phase would include petitioner's claim that David Danielson committed a Solano County homicide for which petitioner was convicted. 1 Finally, he expressed a belief that information concerning petitioner's ability to perceive, recollect and communicate as well as his honesty and veracity would be significant and critical issues to which the required materials would be relevant as they would be relevant to matters of intent and state of mind.
The affidavit cited the cases of People v. Reber (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 523, 223 Cal.Rptr. 139 and Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 as authority for balancing defendant's rights to a defense against the privileges which might adhere to the materials sought in determining whether the materials are discoverable.
Petitioner orally moved to quash the subpoena on the ground, among others, that the records were protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege. David Danielson orally moved to join in the subpoena. The motion to quash was considered by the court on March 6, 1997. On that date respondent court heard in camera from all parties separately as to their positions. The court then denied the motion to quash and, again in camera with no parties or attorneys present, explained its reasoning.
Petitioner challenged this ruling by the instant petition for writ of mandate. We issued an alternative writ to which both Gary and David Danielson have filed returns.
The psychotherapist-patient privilege invoked here by petitioner is found in Evidence Code section 1014, which provides that "... the patient, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist...." (People v. John B. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1076-1077, 237 Cal.Rptr. 659.)
The concept of balancing the interest in protecting the psychotherapist-patient privilege against the needs of the party seeking the information does not ordinarily apply to the privilege. As explained at its enactment: "Although it is recognized that the granting of the privilege may operate in particular cases to withhold relevant information, the interests of society will be better served if psychiatrists are able to assure patients that their confidences will be protected." (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, com., 29B West's Ann. Evid.Code pt. 3 (1995 ed.) foll. § 1014, p. 333.)
In the line of cases cited in the affidavit in support of the subpoena, the courts have recognized that the psychiatric-patient privilege may have to give way to a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In People v. Reber, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d 523, 223 Cal.Rptr. 139 (hereafter Reber ), the defendants had been charged with various sexual offenses against one victim who was developmentally handicapped and retarded and against a second victim who suffered from chronic mental illness. (Id. at p. 527, 223 Cal.Rptr. 139.) The issue presented to the Court of Appeal was whether and to what extent the psychiatric records of these victims could be made available to defendants.
The defendants in Reber relied primarily on Davis v. Alaska, supra, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347. As explained in the Reber opinion: (Reber, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at pp. 529-530, 223 Cal.Rptr. 139.)
The Reber court applied the principles enunciated in the Davis decision to the case before it and concluded "that adherence to a statutory privilege of confidentiality must give way to pretrial access when it would deprive a defendant of the constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination." (Reber, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 531, 223 Cal.Rptr. 139.) The court went on to hold that defendants must initially show good cause for the discovery and, given such a showing, the trial court must examine the records in camera to determine "whether defendants' fundamental right [to confrontation] could be adequately protected by access to nonprivileged material and if not, the extent to which access to privileged material...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hunter
...to impeach their claim at trial that Avery's actions contributed to their decision to shoot Brown. But in Nielsen v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1150, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 566, the court explained that the Brady obligation "is the duty of the prosecution not the duty of codefendants.... ......
-
Fish v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
...for example, the psychotherapist-patient privilege can be invoked in a criminal proceeding.’ " ( Nielsen v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 566 ( Nielsen ); San Diego Trolley, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1091, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 476 ( San ......
-
Dhuper v. Khosla (In re Marriage of Dhuper)
... ... ARTI DHUPER, Respondent, v. ANUJ KHOSLA, Appellant. E077095 California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division March 29, 2023 ... NOT TO ... BE PUBLISHED ... APPEAL ... from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No ... FAMSS1810053, Cheryl C. Kersey, Judge. Affirmed ... as the physician-patient privilege. ( Nielsen v. Superior ... Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1153-1154; see also ... People v ... ...
-
D.P. v. Angeles
...and provides greater protection to the patient than other privileges, such as the physician-patient privilege. (Nielsen v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1153-1154; Senate Com. on Judiciary com., 29B Pt. 3B West's Ann. Evid. Code (2009 ed.) foll. § 1014, p. 18; see also People v......
-
Witness
...be compelled. Gag order in suit involving surgeon with celebrity patients was an invalid prior restraint. Nielsen v. Superior Court , 55 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 1155, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). In criminal prosecution for murder, defendant was precluded from obtaining the psychi......
-
Table of cases
...2d 840, §21:110 Nicholes, People v. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 836, 201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286, §22:10 Nielsen v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 566, §10:100 Nieves, People v. (2021) 11 Cal. 5th 404, 278 Cal. Rptr. 3d 40, §§2:110, 10:60, 14:50, 17:140, 19:150, 19:160......
-
Privileges and public policy exclusions
...or others, because of some mental or emotional disturbance, to seek professional assistance. Nielsen v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 1153-1154, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 566. The privilege reflects a patient’s constitutional right to privacy and is broadly construed in favor of the p......
-
Chapter 4 - §1. Overview
...v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1094; Kling v. Superior Ct. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1068, 1077; Nielsen v. Superior Ct. (1st Dist.1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1156; People v. Superior Ct. (Broderick) (4th Dist.1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 584, 594. The disclosures under Pen. C. §§1054.1 and 1054.3 are d......