Court Opinion

ID: 9848074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:12:25.624952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:32.947219
License: Public Domain

The majority opinion removes the absolute protection of privileges, which our law has recognized for many decades, and casts them upon the doubtful scales of another "balancing" test. By thus weakening the patient-psychiatrist privilege, we also diminish other established privileges, notably as to communications between husband and wife, between attorney and client, and among grand jurors.
All of this is done in the name of "confrontation." Yet, it need not be. "Generally speaking, the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish." Delaware v.Fensterer, 474 U.S. ___ (106 S.C. 292, 295, 88 L.Ed.2d 15) (1985).
I would not inflate the concept of "confrontation" to admit of an inquisitorial scrutiny into private concerns that long have been shielded by the statutory law of our state. See OCGA §24-9-21. Accord Tiller v. State, 159 Ga. App. 557 (1) (284 S.E.2d 63) (1981).
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Smith join in this special concurrence.