Opinion ID: 1561405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Postconviction Discovery Request

Text: Floyd next challenges the postconviction court's denial of his requests to subpoena the counseling records of the three children and to depose J.J. [8] The ruling of a postconviction court on a motion for discovery is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Reaves v. State, 942 So.2d 874, 881 (Fla.2006). With regard to the counseling records of the children, the Florida Evidence Code generally provides that records made during the course of treatment of a patient's mental or emotional condition are privileged: A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, confidential communications or records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition. . . between the patient and the psychotherapist, or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist. This privilege includes any diagnosis made, and advice given, by the psychotherapist in the course of that relationship. § 90.503(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). This privilege may be claimed by certain individuals, including the patient himself or herself, see id. § 90.503(3)(a), and the psychotherapist on behalf of the patient. See id. § 90.503(3)(d) (The authority of a psychotherapist to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.). Here, the postconviction record reflects that legal counsel for the entity that provided the children with counseling absolutely asserted that the records were privileged and confidential. [9] In State v. Roberson, 884 So.2d 976, 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), review denied, 895 So.2d 406 (Fla.2005), the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that neither the Evidence Code, nor any applicable constitutional principle allows the invasion of a victim's privileged communications with her psychotherapist. The district court quashed a trial court order that granted discovery into the mental health records of a child sex-crime victim and quoted the United States Supreme Court for the proposition that [e]ffective psychotherapy . . . depends upon an atmosphere of confidence and trust in which the patient is willing to make a frank and complete disclosure of facts, emotions, memories, and fears. Because of the sensitive nature of the problems for which individuals consult psychotherapists, disclosure of confidential communications made during counseling sessions may cause embarrassment or disgrace. For this reason, the mere possibility of disclosure may impede development of the confidential relationship necessary for successful treatment. Id. (quoting Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996)). Despite the statutory privilege, section 394.4615(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), allows a court to order the release of confidential clinical records when there is good cause for disclosure. Here, postconviction counsel contended that he sought the records in light of the fact that the prosecutor had at one time expressed concern about the mental health of the children. However, this does not constitute good cause. Rather, it is completely reasonable, if not expected, for children who witnessed the murder of their grandmother to have psychological issues arising from the event. Moreover, during trial, J.J. and LaJade were qualified by the trial court for competency and testified with regard to the events that occurred on the night of the murder. Accordingly, the jury had the opportunity to observe the children and weigh their credibility when it evaluated the guilt or innocence of Floyd. We do not understand what disclosure of these privileged communications could have achieved at the postconviction stage. Consequently, Floyd has failed to demonstrate that the postconviction court abused its discretion when it denied the request to compel disclosure of counseling records. With regard to deposing J.J., postconviction counsel asserted that he wished to inquire with regard to lighting conditions on the night of the murder and the ability of J.J. to observe the person who was in Ms. Goss's house. However, as previously noted, the trial court determined competency before he testified. Accordingly, any issue with regard to his competency should have been raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred at this time. Further, while postconviction counsel certainly may assert that trial counsel was ineffective for the failure to question J.J. about lighting conditions, we agree with the trial court that to depose J.J. seven years after the murder merely to adduce whether any part of his recollection has changed is of dubious relevance to an effectiveness evaluation of trial counsel. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court when it denied the request to depose J.J.