Menendez v. Superior Court
834 P.2d 786, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 92, 3 Cal. 4th 435 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'dangerous patient' exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege is narrow, removing protection only for those specific communications a therapist reasonably believes must be disclosed to prevent harm. The exception does not cause a blanket waiver of the privilege for subsequent, separate communications, and the privilege is not defeated if a third party eavesdrops on or later disseminates the confidential information.
Facts:
- After their parents, Jose and Mary Louise Menendez, were killed on August 20, 1989, brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez began psychotherapy with Dr. Leon Jerome Oziel.
- During sessions on October 31 and November 2, 1989, the brothers made communications that caused Dr. Oziel to believe they posed a physical threat to him.
- Dr. Oziel also feared for the safety of his wife, Laurel Oziel, and his lover, Judalon Smyth, due to their relationships with him.
- Believing disclosure was necessary to prevent harm, Dr. Oziel warned both Laurel Oziel and Judalon Smyth about the threats made by the Menendez brothers, revealing the content of the October 31 and November 2 sessions.
- Smyth also acted as an eavesdropper and overheard some of the communications during the October 31 session.
- The brothers continued to attend therapy sessions with Dr. Oziel, including on November 28 and December 11, 1989.
- Dr. Oziel made audiotape recordings of his notes regarding the October 31, November 2, and November 28 sessions, and he recorded the actual session on December 11.
Procedural Posture:
- A magistrate issued a search warrant authorizing the search of the offices and residence of Dr. Leon Oziel, the psychotherapist for Lyle and Erik Menendez.
- Pursuant to the warrant, law enforcement seized several items, including audiotape cassettes containing Dr. Oziel's session notes and a recording of an actual session.
- Dr. Oziel filed a motion in Los Angeles Superior Court asserting the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of the Menendez brothers regarding the seized tapes.
- The Menendez brothers intervened in the proceeding to support the claim of privilege.
- After an in camera hearing, the Superior Court rejected the claim of privilege for all the tapes, ruling that the 'dangerous patient' exception applied to the first two sessions and that the subsequent loss of confidentiality destroyed the privilege for all remaining sessions.
- The Menendez brothers (petitioners) petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the Superior Court's order.
- The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the 'dangerous patient' exception applied to the early sessions and that the later sessions were not for a therapeutic purpose and thus were never privileged.
- The Supreme Court of California granted the Menendez brothers' petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do confidential communications between a patient and psychotherapist lose their privileged status when (1) the therapist discloses some communications under the 'dangerous patient' exception, or (2) the communications are later overheard or disseminated by a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. The psychotherapist-patient privilege is not automatically destroyed for all communications under these circumstances. The privilege protects communications made in confidence, and only the patient holds the power to waive it. The 'dangerous patient' exception, codified in Evidence Code § 1024, removes the privilege only for those specific communications for which the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe the patient is dangerous and disclosure is necessary to avert that danger. This exception does not apply to subsequent confidential communications, even if they are 'restatements' of earlier unprivileged ones, because each communication must be analyzed separately. Furthermore, the court explicitly rejects the old 'eavesdropper rule,' holding that the patient's 'privilege to prevent' disclosure can be asserted even if a third party overhears or obtains the confidential information. Applying these principles, the communications from the October 31 and November 2 sessions fall under the dangerous patient exception because Dr. Oziel reasonably believed disclosure was necessary to prevent harm. However, the communications from the November 28 and December 11 sessions remain privileged because the trial court found Dr. Oziel no longer believed disclosure was necessary, and the earlier limited disclosure did not waive the privilege for these later, separate sessions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the 'dangerous patient' exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege. By establishing that the exception applies only to specific communications necessary to avert harm, the ruling prevents a single disclosure from causing a wholesale waiver of the privilege for the entire therapeutic relationship. The court's explicit repudiation of the 'eavesdropper rule' reinforces the strength and patient-centric nature of the privilege, ensuring that a breach of confidentiality by a third party does not defeat the patient's right to prevent disclosure in legal proceedings. This framework protects patient privacy, encourages individuals to continue therapy even after a crisis, and requires courts to conduct a granular, session-by-session analysis when evaluating privilege claims.
