Opinion ID: 2321987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pennsylvania v. Ritchie Controls.

Text: We review the Superior Court's denial of Burns' request for a Rule 17 subpoena for abuse of discretion. [33] Communications between a patient and therapist are privileged under D.R.E. 503(a). [34] That privilege is not an absolute bar to the disclosure of a witness' communication with her therapist, however. Where, as here, the privilege is invoked to bar discovery of potentially relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding, the trial court must balance the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights against the witness' privilege. [35] In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie , [36] the United States Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of a father who had committed various sexual offenses against his daughter. After Ritchie was charged, the matter was referred to Children and Youth Services (CYS), a state agency. [37] During pretrial discovery, Ritchie served CYS with a subpoena seeking the disclosure of records relating to the charges against him. CYS refused to comply, claiming the records were privileged. [38] The trial judge denied Ritchie's request to compel CYS to produce those records, and declined to review them in camera. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that by denying Ritchie access to the CYS records, the trial court violated his Confrontation Clause rights. [39] The United States Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Applying a Due Process Clause analysis, that Court held that Ritchie was entitled to an in camera review of the CYS records, but not to a direct review by his attorney. [40] The State contends that Ritchie is inapposite because that case involved records held by a state agency. That is a distinction without a difference. Although Ritchie involved the disclosure of records in the possession of the State, nothing in the Ritchie Court's holding or analysis limits its application to records held by the State. Moreover, other jurisdictions have held that Ritchie applies to privately held records. [41] From the standpoint of the privilege holder it is immaterial whether the holder's therapy records are in the possession of a private party or the State. In either circumstance, the privilege holder has the identical interest in non-disclosure. Therefore, Ritchie applies here. Consequently, Burns, upon a proper showing, would have been entitled to a Superior Court in camera review of the victims' therapy records.