Opinion ID: 2334525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: WE REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO DENY MR. LENKART'S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO THE VICTIM'S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS AND REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE UNDER THE STANDARD ARTICULATED IN STATE v. WORTHEN

Text: ¶ 46 Having concluded that Mr. Lenkart has met his burden to establish that his trial counsel was ineffective, the only issue left to resolve concerns Mr. Lenkart's motion for an in camera review of K.H.'s mental health records. Because the trial court denied Mr. Lenkart's request for a new trial, it did not consider the merits of this motion. [28] ¶ 47 Utah Rule of Evidence 506(b) protects, as privileged, communications between a health care provider and a patient if the communications are made `in confidence and for the purpose of diagnosing and treating the patient.' [29] Although mental health records are generally privileged documents, there are three exceptions to this rule. [30] Mr. Lenkart argues that the exception contained in rule 506(d)(1) applies to this case. ¶ 48 Under rule 506(d)(1) [n]o privilege exists under this rule ... [if the patient's] physical, mental, or emotional condition... is an element of any claim or defense. [31] In our recent case, State v. Worthen , we addressed the rule 506(d)(1) exception at great length. [32] In that case, we concluded that to determine the applicability of the 506(d)(1) exception, the trial court must move sequentially through three analytical steps. First, the trial court must determine whether the patient suffers from a physical, mental, or emotional condition as opposed to mental or emotional problems that do not rise to the level of a condition. [33] On this issue we stated, [a] condition is not transitory or ephemeral. A mental or an emotional condition is a state that persists over time and significantly affects a person's perceptions, behavior, or decision making in a way that is relevant to the reliability of the person's testimony. [34] If the trial court determines that the patient suffers from a condition, the trial court must next assess whether the patient's condition is an element of any claim or defense. [35] Finally, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown with reasonable certainty that the mental health records will contain exculpatory evidence favorable to the defense. [36] This requires some type of extrinsic indication that the evidence within the records exists, and will in fact, be exculpatory. [37] ¶ 49 Because Worthen was decided after the briefs in this case were filed, the parties were not able to frame their arguments in light of this new analysis. We thus conclude that it is appropriate to reverse the trial court's decision to deny Mr. Lenkart's motion and remand this issue to the trial court for consideration on the merits in the light of Worthen. On remand, we instruct the trial court to use the Worthen analysis to guide its decision.