On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW majority overrules Shiffra/Green
State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 05/16/2023, reversing a published court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)
As the dissent aptly describes it, “[t]his case has traveled a long and winding road to this point, and Johnson’s trial has not yet begun.” (Opinion, ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). As discussed in On Point’s prior posts, here and here, this case was originally about whether “Marsy’s Law” gave crime victims standing to intervene in Shiffra–Green litigation. After the court appeals held that it did and after Johnson petitioned for review, the supreme court took up the case. Then, in a footnote in its response brief, the state asserted that, “Shiffra is incorrect to the extent that it holds that Ritchie applies to records outside the State’s possession.” (Op., ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). Thereafter, the supreme court ordered supplemental briefing on a new question: “Should the court overrule State v. Shiffra…?” (Op., ¶4). And, now the majority has done just that.
COA rejects challenges to admission of psychological report and IAC claim; affirms TPR
State v. T.M., 2021AP1729, 8/16/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Taylor” presented three challenges to the termination of her parental rights to her son: (1) erroneous admission of a psychological examination; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to object to a flawed jury instruction; and (3) insufficient evidence. The court of appeals rejected all of them.
Using therapist as part of defense against TPR petition waived therapist-patient privilege
State v. Mary G., 2015AP55, 2015AP56, & 2015AP57, District 1, 6/2/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase of the trial on a TPR petition, the circuit court properly ordered Mary G. to provide the State with notes from her mental health treatment provider and appropriately considered evidence regarding Mary’s failure to manage her medications.
TPR – Therapy Privilege, § 905.04(1)(b)
Winnebago County DHS v. Jenny L. G.-J., 2009AP2956, District 2, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jenny L. G.-J.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity
The privilege attaching to interactions under direction of a family therapist, § 905.04(1)(b), doesn’t apply to information obtained by “dispositional staff” providing services under § 48.069.
¶11 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.069(1) defines a dispositional staffer as a member of “[t]he staff of the department [of children and families],
Privilege – Patient-Counselor, § 905.04(4) (2001-02) – Extinguished by Mandatory Reporting Obligations
State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110, affirming as modified 2004 WI App 51
For Intervenor Dawn R.: Dwight D. Darrow
Issue/Holding: Revelation of a child’s statement to a counselor, discussing whether or not she had been sexually abused, may not be resisted on ground of privilege:
¶7 We do not address these issues regarding waiver because we conclude that there is no privilege here.
Privilege – Counselor-Patient – Waiver: Volitional, Not Intentional
State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed as modified, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow
Issue/Holding:
¶15. This court recently analyzed whether waiver of the attorney-client privilege must be intentional under Wis. Stat. § 905.11. Sampson Children’s Trust v. Sampson 1979 Trust, 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis.
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop – Basis – Privileged Information – Public Safety Exception to Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege
State v. Curtis M. Agacki, 226 Wis.2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Agacki: John M. Carroll.
Issue: “(W)hether whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist’s account of a patient’s disclosure, which provided the basis for the officer’s probable cause to search the patient.”
Holding: Because the statements involved the patient’s threat of imminent harm to another,
Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, § 905.04
State v. Curtis M. Agacki, 226 Wis.2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Agacki: John M. Carroll.
Issue/Holding: Psychotherapist-patient may be abrogated by “dangerous-patient exception” recognized by Schuster v. Altenberg, 144 Wis.2d 223, 424 N.W.2d 159 (1988), and Tarasoff v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).