Opinion ID: 2618236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: R.E. 503(b)(2) provides:

Text: A patient [of a physician or psychotherapist] has a privilege in a criminal action to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of [the patient's] physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, among [the patient], [the patient's] physician or psychotherapist, and persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the psychotherapist, including members of the patient's family. Similarly, this rule does not apply to communications by a psychotherapist that have become part of the court records in a juvenile proceeding. The privilege or confidentiality of these records is governed by the provisions of I.C. § 16-1816. It was within the discretion of the trial court to order the Department to release Brown's juvenile records to the presentence investigator. As this Court recognized many years ago: Where discretion is conferred upon the court in fixing the punishment for crime the law recognizes that the previous character, good or bad, of one convicted should be considered in fixing the punishment... . State v. Weise, 75 Idaho 404, 411, 273 P.2d 97, 101 (1954). The Court has also recognized that the trial court has much more latitude regarding information which it may consider for purposes of sentencing once a criminal defendant's guilt has been established than the court or the jury could have considered at the phase of a trial in which the state is attempting to establish a defendant's guilt. State v. Ballard, 93 Idaho 355, 359, 461 P.2d 250, 254 (1969). The trial court has broad discretion in determining what evidence is to be admitted at a sentencing hearing ( State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 583, 618 P.2d 759, 761 (1980)) and is entitled to consider a wide range of relevant evidence when [the trial court] evaluates what the appropriate sentence for each particular defendant [the trial court] sentences may be. Sivak v. State, 112 Idaho 197, 214, 731 P.2d 192, 209 (1987). In State v. Romero, 116 Idaho 391, 775 P.2d 1233 (1989), the Court said: After a jury's determination of guilt, it is essential that the court receive all available adequate information about the defendant, before imposing a sentence which hopefully will be commensurate with the crime for which the defendant has been convicted. Id. at 393, 775 P.2d at 1235 (emphasis in original). In granting the state's motion for release of Brown's juvenile records, the trial court stated: It's the position of the court that the juvenile record of a person who has committed a crime, has pled guilty and where a presentence investigation report is ordered that that information is accessible to the presentence investigator by an order of the court and that the court should have that information in order to make a determination of what an appropriate sentence would be. Taking into consideration the nature of the offenses committed and the fact that ... it may or may not be of importance, depending upon what the record shows, but it may show types of treatment, types of programs that the defendant has gone through before, may or may not show previous offenses of the nature of the offenses that were committed in this particular situation and certainly I think that it's relevant and material and it should be considered by the court ... if in fact there is information there. ... I want to know all I can about the defendant that is relevant and material with regard to prior treatment, with regard to prior crimes, with regard to prior history prior to the time that the defendant is sentenced. Applying the analysis of State v. Hedger , we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering Brown's juvenile record.