SECOND DI VI SI ON M I LLER, P. J. , M A RKLE and LA ND, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

A ugust 13, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 6 47

. I N RE CH ARI TY M USE, LPC, B CC.
L A N D , J u d ge. This is an ap peal f

ro m an o rd er d e n y i n g a m o tio n to qu ash a s u bp o e na

c o mp e lling c o u nselo r Charity M u se to d i s c l ose the m ental health rec o rd s o f her
p atient to ap p ellee William Bo w man, w ho is charged w ith mo lesting that p atient. The
trial c o u rt c o n clu ded that p u r su ant to Bo b o v . S ta t e , 256 Ga. 357 ( 349 SE2d 6 9 0) (1 9 86 ), B o w man’ s need f o r the rec o rd s in prep aring his d ef ense o u tw eighed M u se’ s interest in pro tec ting these p riv ileged materials f ro m d isc lo s u r e . On ap p eal, 1 M u se

1 A ltho u gh t he c ase a gainst Bo w m an remains p end ing, Mu se is entitled to a d irec t ap p eal u nd er the c ollateral o rd er do c trine. “[A ] d isc o v ery o rd er d irec ted a t a d isinterested third p arty is t r ea t e d as an immed iately ap p ealable final o rd er bec au se the third p arty p resu m a bly lac k s a su f f ic ient stak e in the p r o c eed ing to risk c o ntemp t by ref u sing c omp lianc e. ” Hi

ckey v . RRE

F BB S BL Acqu i s i ti o n s , LLC , 336 Ga. A p p . 41 1, 41 3- 41 4 (1 ) (7 85 SE2d 7 2) (201 6 ).argu es that the tr i a l c o u r t abu sed its d isc retio n w hen it d enied her mo tio n to qu ash

bec au se the ev id enc e w a s insu f f i c i en t , bec au se it imp r o p erly relied o n statements mad e by c o u nsel, and bec au se the p ro tec tio ns af f o rd ed M use and her p atient against
d isc lo su re are inad equ ate. W e f ind no erro r and af

f irm.

“ G eo rgia law p ro v id es sev eral p riv ilege s r e l a t ed to mental health, w hic h,

c o llec tiv ely, are r e fe r r e d t o as the ‘ mental health p riv ilege. ’ ” Di Pi etro v . S ta te , 356 Ga.
A p p . 5 39 , 548 (3) (848 SE2d 1 53) (2020), qu o ting Bro wn v . Ho wa rd , 334 Ga. Ap p . 1 82,
1 85 (1 ) (7 7 8 SE2d 81 0 ) ( 2 0 1 5 )

. A s M u se c o nc ed es, w e rev iew a trial c o u rt’ s ru ling

c o nc e rning the a pp lic atio n o f a p riv ilege o nly f or an abu se of d isc retio n. Di Pi etro , 356
Ga. A p p . at 548 (3).
Thu s v iew ed in f

av or o f the j u d gment, the rec o rd sho w s that w hile the alleged

v ic tim w as a patient of M u se betw een 201 9 a nd 2022, she d e sc ribed being inap p r o p riately to uc hed by B o w man, her grand f ather, starting in 2008, w hen she w as f o u r years o ld , and end ing when she w as abo u t nine years o ld

. B y 2022, t he v ic tim w as in c o u nseling tw ic e a week , a nd her f o r ensic interv iew mak es nu mero u s ref erenc es to that c o unseling, inc lu d ing her u se o f ap p arently therap eu tic terms lik e “ d isso c iativ e

2d iso rd e r. ” 2 As to t his alleged v ic tim, B ow man was ev e n t u a lly c harged with f o u r

c o u nts o f c hild mo lestatio n, tw o c o u nts o f c hild c ru elty, and o ne c o unt o f entic ing a

c hild f o r ind ec e nt p urp o ses. B ow man so u ght d isc lo su re o f the v ic tim’ s co u n s e l i n g r e co rd s, argu ing that they
p r o v i d e d e v id enc e o f c o ac hing. W hen the State named M use as t he c o u nselo r, B ow man serv ed her w ith a su bp o ena d u ces tec u m f o r “ [a]ny and a ll c o u nseling f iles,

rec o rd s, ap p o intments, no tes, memo rand u ms, o r any o ther d o c u ment related to the

treatment o f [the v ic tim]. ” M u se mo v ed to qu ash the su bp o ena o n the gro u nd s that
it w as o v erbro ad and v io lated f ed eral regu latio ns c o nc erning the disc lo su re o f med ic al

rec o rd s in a j u d ic i a l p r o c eed ing. See 45 CFR § 1 6 4. 51 2 (e). A t the hearing o n the

mo tio n to qu ash the su bp o ena, B o w man argu ed that giv en the v ic tim’ s age w hen the

a lleged mo lestatio n began, her rec o llec tio ns w ere u nd erstand ably “ f o ggy” a n d h e r

o u tc ry limited to h e r i m m e d i ate family su ch that M u se’ s no tes w ou ld be c ritic al

ev id enc e in the c ase. A t the c o nc lu sio n of the hearing, the trial c o urt reserv ed r u ling o n the in c amera
p r o c ed u res to be f

o llo w ed by the p arties and later entered an o rd er find ing that

2 The State d isc lo sed the f o rensic interv iew in c o nne c t i o n w ith a su p ersed ed ind ic tment.
3B o w man had c arried his b u rd e n u nd er Bo b o , su p ra, o f sho w ing a need f or M u s e ’ s materials as c ritic al and no t o therw ise av ailable to his d ef ense. The trial c o u rt no ted

t h at the inf

o rmatio n w as su bj ec t to f e d e ral regu latio ns bu t “ w a s p ro p erly s u b j e c t t o d isc lo su re” u nd e r them. The trial c o u rt also o rd ered that “ [i]n an attemp t to p ro tec t

c o nf id e ntial i t y and limit ac c ess . . . , the inf o r matio n su bj ec t to the su bp o e na w ill be

tu rned o v er to ” the c o u r t b y N o v ember 1, 2023, and w ou ld “ o nly be su bj ec t to ]

rev iew and u se by the p arties .

. . p u rsu ant to Co u rt su p erv isio n. ”

1

. I n Bo b o , su p ra, o u r Su p reme Co u rt held that “w hen the p r iv ilege o f a w itness
stand s in the w a

y o f the d ef

end ant’ s right t o c o nf

ro nt t he w itnesses against him, then,

u p o n a p ro p er sho w ing b y the d ef end ant, t he balanc e m u s t b e t ip p ed in f av o r o f his

c o nstitu tio nal rights and the searc h f o r the tru th. ” 256 G a. a t 359 (3). The Co u rt w ent

o n to sp e c if

y that [i]n ord er t o abro gate the p syc hiatrist- p atient p riv ilege, the d ef e nd a nt
mu st m ak e a sho w ing o f nec essity, that is, that the ev id e nc e in qu estio n is c r i t i c a l to his d ef

ense and that su bstantially similar ev id enc e is
o therw ise u nav ailable t o him.

. . . [ A ] d ef e nd ant may no t e xp lo re s u c h
ev id enc e u nless he mak es allegatio ns su f f ic ient to e s tablish a p rima fac ie need f o r its d isc o v e r y b y a p ro p er mo tio n f o r a p retrial hearing. At the
ensu ing inqu iry, the p syc hiatrist w o uld be a v ailable to the d ef end ant f o r d isc o v ery o f his f

ind ings a nd any statements mad e by the p atient- w itness

4to him material to the issu es o n trial. T h e trial c o u rt mu st, c o nsistent

w ith the d emand s o f d u e p ro c ess, t hen d elineate tho s e c o m mu nic atio ns
av ailable to the d ef

ense f or u se at trial. Co nv ersely, any c o m mu nic atio ns
no t central to the d ef

ense mu st remain p riv ile g e d and inad missible at trial.

I d. a t 3 5 9

- 3 6 0 (4). This Co u rt has rec ently no ted t hat p rima f a c ie ev id enc e c an be

su f fic ient, “ if no t rebu tted ,” to su stain a trial c o u rt’ s d isc retio nary d eterminatio n that
mental health rec o rd s sho u ld b e d isc lo sed

. In re Fro s t , 36 6 Ga. A p p . 45, 48 (1 ) (b) (880
SE2d 6 5 0) (2022).
M u se c ites Fro s t f

o r her assertio n that the t r ial c o u rt abu sed its d isc retio n. That

w as ind eed o u r j ud gment in Fro s t , bu t that d ef

end ant av erred only his “ u nd erstand ing
and belief that the mino r c hild mad e statements” relev ant to his def e nse and “ d id no t ad d ress the p u rp o rted su b j ec t matter o f tho s e statements[. ] ” 36 6 Ga. A p p . at 48 (1 ) (b). By c o ntrast, B o w m an has p o inted o u t that this v ic tim d isc lo sed o nly to M u se and
her immed iate f

amily, ref erenc ed her c o u nseling w ith M u se ten ti m e s i n the c o u r se

o f the f o r e nsic interv iew , and u sed tec hnic al langu age su c h as “ d isso c iativ e d iso rd e r”
she may w ell hav e learned fro m M u se, w ho may hav e mad e the initial d isc lo su re to law
enf o rc ement in the c a se . T h e t r ial c o u rt had this and o t her ev id enc e bef o re it to

5su p p o rt its d isc r etio nary d eterminatio n that the rec o rd s so u ght are “c rit i c a l ” to

B ow man’ s d e f

ense and that “su bstantially similiar ev id e nc e is u nav ailable to him. ”
Bo b o , 256 Ga. at 36 0 (4); see also U. S

. v . L in ds tro m , 6 9 8 F. 2d 1 1 54, 1 1 6 4- 1 1 6 8 (1 1 th
Cir. 1 9 83) (rev e rsing a t rial c o u rt’ s d enial o f ac c ess to a c o mp lainant’ s mental health

rec o rd s w hen the d ef

e nse’ s c hief argu ment w as that the c o m p lainant w as mo tiv ated by a v end etta arising f

ro m a mental illness that had requ ired ho sp italiz a tio n in t h e
p ast). On this rec o rd , w e c anno t c o nc lu d e that the trial c o u rt abu sed its d isc retio n.
2. M u se also asserts that the trial c o u rt sho u ld no t hav e relied o n B o w man’ s

c o u nsel’ s s tat e m ents in his plac e c o nc e rning the c ontents o f t he v ic tim’ s f o rensic
interv iew

. This igno res the fac t that “ atto rneys are o f f ic ers o f the c o u rt [su ch that] a

statement to [that] c o u rt in their p lac e is p rima f ac ie tru e and need s no f u rther

v erif ic a tio n u nless the same is requ ired by the c o u rt or the o p p o site p arty. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) S ta te v . Ro s en b a u m , 305 Ga. 442, 451 ( 2) ( a) (826 SE2d 1 8) (201 9 ). H ere, Mu se mad e no o bj ec tio n to c o u nsel’ s statements, and has t hu s w aiv ed
any o bj ec tio n c o nc erning them o n ap p eal. See id

. a t 451

- 452 (2) (a) (in the absenc e o f

an obj ec tio n by t he State, d ef end ants’ a tto rney’ s pro f

f er w as su f

f ic ient ev id enc e o f
their “ d emand s” ).

63. Citing to the h e a r i ng transc rip t, M u se also argu e s that the trial c o u rt’ s

p ro c ed ures f

o r p r o tec ting the co nf

id entiality o f her rec o rd s was insu f f ic ient. Bu t “ the
trial c o u rt’ s w rit t en o rd e r c o ntro ls o v er any oral statements mad e at t he hearing,”
S ta te v . McC

a rgo , 352 Ga. A p p . 501 , 503 (835 SE2d 31 7 ) (201 9 ) , and this o r d er
sp ec if ied , c iting Bo b o , that t he inf o rmatio n w o u ld be held by the c o u r t and w o u ld

“ only be su bj ec t to rev iew a nd u se b y the p arti e s t o th e litigatio n p u rsu ant to Co urt

su p erv isio n. ” Und er Bo b o , th e trial c o u rt is requ ired to release o nly “ material”
inf o rmatio n and to maintain as p riv ileged “ any c o m mu nic atio ns no t c e n t r a l t o the
d ef ense. ” 256 Ga. at 36 0 (4); see also Fro st , 36 6 Ga. A p p . at 47 -48 (1 ) ( a). This
p ro c ess remains to b e c omp leted

. I n the absenc e of any ev id enc e that the trial c o urt has v io lated this stand ard , w e w ill no t p resu me erro r. Ju dgmen t a

ffi rmed. Mi ller, P. J. , a n d Ma rkle, J. , co n c u r .

7