The Supreme Court publishes on its website lists of issues pending before the court in civil and criminal cases. Both lists lead with a disclaimer: “The statement of the issue or issues in each case set out below does not necessarily reflect the views of the court, or define the specific issues that will be addressed by the court.” Despite the disclaimer, the list is often accurate and complete, but not always. The court’s opinion this morning in People v. Gonzales is a good reminder that there may be issues lurking in a case that don’t make the list.
The issues list says that the court was going to decide: (1) Was defendant’s statement to his psychotherapist that he had molested 16 children in the distant past properly admitted into evidence in a commitment proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act pursuant to the “dangerous patient” exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege? and (2) Did the disclosure of defendant’s statements violate a federal constitutional right of privacy?
The court did decide those issues, holding that “the trial court erred in permitting disclosure of defendant’s psychological records and in admitting his former therapist’s testimony in reliance upon the dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege.”
