Opinion ID: 852804
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Relevant Date: the Date of Communication or the Date of Disclosure.

Text: Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1 provides in pertinent part: Matters communicated to a counselor [1] in the counselor's official capacity by a client are privileged information and may not be disclosed by the counselor to any person, except under the following circumstances: (1) In a criminal proceeding involving a homicide if the disclosure relates directly to the fact or immediate circumstances of the homicide. This statute was enacted effective July 1, 1990. Center contends that because I.C. § 25-23.6-6-1 prohibits a counselor from disclosing communications, the critical time for determining the applicability of the statute is when the communications are sought to be disclosed, not when the communications are originally made. According to Center, because the communications made by Pelley and members of his family were sought to be disclosed well after the statute was enacted, the trial court correctly quashed the subpoena. When construing a statute our main objective is to determine, give effect to, and implement the intent of the legislature. Melrose v. Capitol City Motor Lodge, Inc., 705 N.E.2d 985, 989 (Ind. 1998). This jurisdiction generally recognizes that privileges are statutory in nature and that it is within the power of the legislature to create them. Terre Haute Reg'l Hosp., Inc. v. Trueblood, 600 N.E.2d 1358, 1360 (Ind.1992). Most privileges were unknown at common law and, as a result, are to be strictly construed to limit their application. Id. In Matter of C.P., 563 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind. 1990), this Court interpreted the then current version of the statutorily created physician/patient privilege. [2] Noting that such a privilege did not exist at common law and therefore the statute was to be strictly construed, we determined among other things, The privilege is intended to inspire full and complete communication by patients so as to further trustful and successful treatment. [T]his Court has long recognized that the privilege covers both physicians and those who aid physicians, other persons whose intervention is strictly necessary to enable the parties to communicate with each other. Id. at 1278 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Ley v. Blose, 698 N.E.2d 381, 383-84 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (By safeguarding the confidentiality of communications, the physician-patient privilege seeks to inspire full and complete disclosure of knowledge pertinent and necessary to a trustful and proper relationship.) (emphasis added) (internal quotation omitted). In essence we have determined that the underlying purpose of the physician/patient privilege is to inspire full and complete communication. If that purpose is to be served, then the participants in a confidential conversation must be able to predict with some degree of certainty that the particular communications will be protected. By enacting I.C. § 25-23.6-6-1 the Legislature extended to counselors the same privilege that exists for physicians. The intent and dominant purpose of the statute is to grant a privilege to protect confidential communication between a counselor and the counselor's client. It is of course true the counselor/client privilege speaks in terms of disclosure while the physician/patient privilege does not. Still, the focus of both privileges is the same, namely, protecting communication. Consequently, because the focus of the statute is on the underlying communications and not, as Center contends, on the ultimate disclosure of the communications, the statute only protects communications made after the effective date. To exclude communications made prior to this date would be, in effect, to apply the statute retroactively. That brings us to our next point.