Opinion ID: 2625577
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Turn Records Over to Court for In Camera Review

Text: ¶42 Next, Mr. Gonzales argues that he was entitled to review Jessica's mental health records because her mental health is an element or claim of his defense. Utah Rule of Evidence 506, which defines a privilege between a patient and a mental health therapist, excludes communications that concern a patient's condition where the condition is an element of any claim or defense. This is the same wording that is found on the UNI form that Mr. Montgomery filled out. Mr. Gonzales argues that Jessica's mental health was an element of a claim or defense in the lawsuit, and therefore his request for the records was proper. ¶43 Mr. Gonzales's argument is flawed in two ways. First, his defense is simply I didn't do it. He wishes to use Jessica's mental health records to impeach her credibility as a witness  part of his defense strategy, but not actually an element of his defense. Second, regardless of whether Jessica's mental health is an element of Mr. Gonzales's defense, it is the process by which the records were obtained, not the status of the records as privileged or unprivileged, that prevents Mr. Gonzales from reviewing them. Even if it were true that the records were an element of the defense, or were never privileged in the first place, Mr. Gonzales would still be obligated to obtain them using the proper avenue. ¶44 Mr. Montgomery used a flawed subpoena process to obtain privileged records. [7] His authority to examine those records, however obtained, depended on approval of the trial court following an in camera review. Drawing on a United States Supreme Court case, Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), we made this clear in State v. Cardall, 1999 UT 51, 982 P.2d 79. [8] We stated: In Ritchie, the Supreme Court held that where an exception to privilege allows a defendant access to otherwise confidential records, the defendant does not have the right to examine all of the confidential information or to search through state files without supervision. However, if a defendant can show with reasonable certainty that exculpatory evidence exists which would be favorable to his defense, Ritchie gives him the right to have the otherwise confidential records reviewed by the trial court to determine if they contain material evidence. . . . [W]here a defendant is aware of specific information contained in the file . . ., he is free to request it directly from the court, and argue in favor of its materiality. Cardall, 1999 UT 51 at ¶¶ 30, 32 (citations omitted). ¶45 Here, Mr. Montgomery was obligated to seek an in camera review of Jessica's mental health records before searching through them. Because he did not follow proper procedures in subpoenaing the records or requesting an in camera review, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that the subpoenas must be quashed.