You are here: / / Admission of Child Abuse Made by Defendant to Psychiatrist Protected by...
,

Admission of Child Abuse Made by Defendant to Psychiatrist Protected by Physician-Patient Privilege—Even Though the Admission Can Be Disclosed in Child Protective Proceedings, the Privilege Applies in a Criminal Trial

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that an admission of child sexual abuse made to the defendant's psychiatrist was privileged.  The psychiatrist should not have been allowed to testify about the admission at defendant's trial.  The error was not harmless. The Court made it clear that the relaxed evidentiary standards in child protective proceedings where physicians are required to report abuse, do not extend to the context of a criminal trial where the defendant's liberty is at stake:

The Legislature has determined that the protection of children is of paramount importance, so much so that it has either limited or abrogated the privilege through statutory enactments.

The People erroneously assert that these exceptions place offenders on notice that the physician-patient privilege does not apply to statements or admissions triggering a duty to disclose. But it is one thing to allow the introduction of statements or admissions in child protection proceedings, whose aim is the protection of children, and quite another to allow the introduction of those same statements, through a defendant's psychiatrist, at a criminal proceeding, where the People seek to punish the defendant and potentially deprive him of his liberty. Evidentiary standards are necessarily lower in the former proceedings than in the latter because the interests involved are different. Thus, the relaxed evidentiary standards in child protection proceedings lend no credence to the People's argument that defendant should have known that any admission of abuse he made to his psychiatrist would not be kept confidential. People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 03764, CtApp 5-7-15

 

You might also like
Successive Photo Arrays Okay/Statement Made Voluntarily After Refusing to Waive Miranda Rights Admissible for Impeachment Purposes
The Failure of the Record to Indicate Whether Notes from the Jury Were Properly Addressed by the Court Constitutes a “Mode of Proceedings” Error
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.
Videotaped Interview Indicated Defendant Did Not Understand His Right to Counsel—The Videotaped Statement, As Well As the Prior Oral and Written Statements, Should Have Been Suppressed
(1) SENTENCING COURT’S RELIANCE ON A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT IN A PRE-SENTENCE REPORT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT, VIOLATED DUE PROCESS, (2) SENTENCING COURTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ON THE RECORD.
THE 2022 CONGRESSIONAL AND STATE SENATE REDISTRICTING MAPS DECLARED VOID BECAUSE THEY WERE DRAWN WITH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARTISAN INTENT (CT APP). ​
Different Monetary Standards in Wicks Law (Re: Bids for Construction Contracts) for Different Regions of State Did Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution
WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on... Revocation of Empire-Zone-Business Certifications Upheld in 9 of 11 Instanc...