Opinion ID: 2206372
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exception to the Privilege

Text: The government asserts that even if the information was privileged under D.C.Code § 14-307(a), the judge appropriately applied the interests of public justice exception which specifically excludes from the privilege evidence in a criminal case where the accused is charged with causing the death of, or inflicting injuries upon, a human being, and the disclosure is required in the interests of public justice. D.C.Code § 14-307(b)(1)(1995 Repl.). The government notes that Graham was charged with rape and unlawful carnal knowledge, which is an injury to a human being. The only question remaining for this court, therefore, is whether disclosure is required in the interests of public justice. D.C.Code § 14-307(a). The Superior Court of the District of Columbia has addressed the issue of applying the interests of public justice exception. See In re T.M., Jr., 120 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 2541 (D.C.Super.Ct. Dec. 1, 1992). In re T.M. involved a defendant charged with carnal knowledge, sodomy, and indecent acts on a minor child. The defendant filed a subpoena duces tecum in order to obtain records from a rape counselling center which was treating the victim. Id. at 2541. In addressing the exception, the court employed a balancing test: The issue of what mental health records should be made available to the defense pits two strong societal interests against each other. One is the interest in insuring that those accused of criminal acts receive a fair trial. The other is the interest in insuring that persons with mental health problems can seek treatment without fear of disclosure of statements made during the course of that treatment. Id. at 2546. Finding that the interest of accommodating those who wish to seek mental health treatment was particularly strong in that case, id., the court denied the defendant's request. Id. at 2547. We approve the use of a balancing test when applying the interests of public justice exception. Such a test should consider the interest of encouraging those with mental health problems to seek treatment, but it should also consider other societal interests such as the right to a fair trial. Specifically, this case involves another compelling public interest: the protection of children from abuse. For example, this court has held that it was proper to admit testimony from mental health professionals in a child neglect proceeding, despite the existence of the privilege. In re N.H., 569 A.2d 1179, 1183-84 (D.C. 1990). Further, in ( Michael) Johnson v. United States, 616 A.2d 1216, 1224-25 (D.C.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 996, 113 S.Ct. 1611, 123 L.Ed.2d 172 (1993), this court held that the marital privilege did not prevent a spouse from testifying against her common law husband when the husband was charged with the involuntary manslaughter of, and cruelty to the couple's eight month old daughter. Clearly, then, when a case involves the issue of the safety and welfare of children this court is more willing to find an exception to evidentiary privileges. Consistent with this public interest, D.C.Code § 2-1352(a) (1994 Repl.) requires certain persons to report known or suspected child abuse: Notwithstanding § 14-307, any person specified in subsection (b) of this section who knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child known to him or her in his or her professional capacity has been or is in immediate danger of being a mentally or physically abused or neglected child, as defined by § 16-2301(9), shall immediately report or have a report made of such knowledge or suspicion to either the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia or the Child Protection Services Division of the Department of Human Services. D.C.Code § 2-1352(a). Among those required to make such report is a social service worker. D.C.Code § 2-1352(b) (1994 Repl.). With respect to child neglect proceedings, D.C.Code § 2-1355 (1994 Repl.) creates an exception to both the spousal privilege and the physician-patient privilege in any proceeding in the Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia concerning the welfare of a neglected child when a judge finds that the privilege should be waived in the interest of justice. In one child neglect proceeding, the trial court invoked this exception and waived the mother's physician-patient privilege in order to allow a psychiatrist and psychologist, who were performing an examination of the mother pursuant to a court order prior to the neglect proceeding, to review the records of the mother's past mental health treatment. In re O.L., 584 A.2d 1230, 1231 (D.C.1990). Relying in part on these evaluations, the trial court adjudicated the child neglected. Id. This court affirmed the trial court's construction of D.C.Code § 2-1355. Id. at 1232. In doing so, we noted that D.C.Code § 2-1352(a) requires the reporting of suspected cases of neglect or abuse to the appropriate District of Columbia agencies and stated that [i]t taxes logic to conclude that information for which D.C.Code § 2-1352(a) authorizes disclosure could not also be used in a child neglect proceeding. Id. (quoting In re N.H., supra, 569 A.2d at 1183 n. 7) (footnote omitted). In a criminal case, this court has observed, Although there are distinctions between the civil context of proceedings to determine whether a child has been abused or neglected and the criminal context at issue in the instant case, the public policies are complementary. ( Michael) Johnson, supra, 616 A.2d at 1224. We concluded that the public interest in protecting children is served by prosecuting a father who kills his child. Id. In that case, this court affirmed a decision by the trial court to admit into evidence statements the defendant made to his common law wife concerning his belief that he would be arrested for beating his daughter. Id. at 1219. This court held that where the legislature created a specific exception to the marital privilege in neglect proceedings, but not a specific exception in criminal proceedings, an exception to the privilege in criminal proceedings existed nonetheless. [5] Id. at 1224. This case involves the rape and sexual abuse of a minor. As such, it invokes the public interest in protecting children from abuse. In much the same way as the public interest in protecting children is served by prosecuting a father who kills his child, id., the public interest in protecting children is served by prosecuting those who sexually molest children. Considering this vital public interest, we therefore hold that when a mental health provider has made a report to District authorities of suspected child abuse, the trial court may, in its discretion, admit into evidence testimony from that mental health provider as an exception to the mental health provider-patient privilege pursuant to D.C.Code § 14-307(b)(1). Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion because appellant's interest in seeking mental health was limited at the most, and the interest in public justice is strong, particularly because of the protracted nature of the abuse.