People v. Wharton
809 P.2d 290, 53 Cal. 3d 522, 280 Cal. Rptr. 631 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'dangerous patient' exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege, under Evidence Code § 1024, removes the privilege for a patient's confidential communications that trigger a therapist's warning to a potential victim. This exception allows the therapist to testify about those communications in a subsequent criminal proceeding, even after the threatened harm has occurred.
Facts:
- George Herbert Wharton lived with his girlfriend, Linda Smith.
- In January and February 1986, Wharton voluntarily sought mental health counseling with Drs. Hutcheson and Hamilton, expressing fear that he would lose control and hurt Smith.
- Based on Wharton's statements about his anger and potential for violence, both psychotherapists determined Smith was in danger and warned her of the threat.
- Sometime in mid-February 1986, Wharton and Smith argued, and he killed her by striking her three times on the head with a blunt instrument, likely a hammer.
- After killing her, Wharton wrote a suicide note, attempted to kill himself, and moved her body around the apartment before eventually wrapping it in plastic bags and placing it in a cardboard barrel.
- In the days following Smith's death, Wharton sold her car, cashed her checks, and tried to sell her jewelry and other possessions to buy cocaine.
- On February 27, 1986, after being alerted by concerned relatives and neighbors, police entered the apartment and discovered Smith's body in the barrel.
- Police located and arrested Wharton the next morning; he subsequently confessed to killing Smith during an argument.
Procedural Posture:
- George Herbert Wharton was charged with first-degree murder with a special circumstance of a prior murder conviction in Santa Barbara County Superior Court (trial court).
- Prior to trial, the prosecution filed a motion for a determination that Wharton's two psychotherapists could testify about confidential communications under the dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege.
- The trial court granted the motion, ruling the prosecution could inquire into the substance of the warnings given to the victim and the statements by Wharton that triggered those warnings.
- A jury convicted Wharton of first-degree murder and found the special-circumstance allegation to be true.
- The same jury returned a verdict of death.
- The case is before the Supreme Court of California on automatic appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'dangerous patient' exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege under Evidence Code section 1024 permit a therapist to testify in a subsequent criminal trial about a patient's confidential communications that triggered a warning to a potential victim, even after the victim has been killed?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucas, C.J.
Yes. The 'dangerous patient' exception under Evidence Code section 1024 removes the psychotherapist-patient privilege for communications that trigger a therapist's decision to warn a potential victim, and this exception applies in a subsequent criminal trial even after the threatened danger has been realized. The court reasoned that the statute's language, '[t]here is no privilege,' means that once the factual predicate for the exception exists (a therapist's reasonable belief of danger and the necessity of disclosure), the privilege is permanently removed for those specific communications. Allowing a patient to regain the privilege by killing the victim would lead to an absurd result and undermine the public interest in safety. The court also held that the exception is not limited to prospective use or commitment hearings but applies to all proceedings, including a criminal trial. Furthermore, the warrantless police entry into the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically the need to check on the welfare of a person reliably reported as missing for two weeks.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
No. The 'dangerous patient' exception is prospective only and applies only when disclosure is necessary to prevent a threatened danger. The purpose of the exception is to avert future harm, not to facilitate punishment after the harm has occurred. Once the victim was dead, the reason for the exception ceased to exist, and the communications should have remained privileged. The majority's interpretation misconstrues the statute's plain language and legislative intent. Additionally, the evidence of premeditation and deliberation was insufficient to support a first-degree murder conviction, as it was based on speculation rather than solid evidence of planning, motive, or a particular manner of killing.
Dissenting - Broussard, J.
No. The dangerous patient exception only removes the privilege for a specific communication if the disclosure of that particular communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger. In this case, the therapists warned the victim that she was in a 'dangerous situation' but did not disclose the specific confidential statements Wharton made during therapy. Since the disclosure of those underlying communications was not necessary to warn the victim, they should have remained privileged and inadmissible. The trial court's error in admitting this testimony was prejudicial because the prosecution heavily relied on it to argue premeditation.
Concurring - Kennard, J.
This justice concurred with the majority opinion without authoring a separate opinion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope and permanence of the 'dangerous patient' exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege. It establishes that the exception is not merely a tool for therapists to make a protective warning, but is an evidentiary rule that makes specific confidential communications admissible in a later criminal trial. The ruling confirms that the exception's applicability is determined at the moment the therapist reasonably perceives a threat, and the privilege is not restored if the harm occurs. This holding strengthens the prosecution's ability to use a defendant's own words from therapy as evidence of intent or premeditation, but it may also chill patients' willingness to fully disclose violent thoughts, impacting the effectiveness of therapy.
