Luhdorff

Luhdorff v. Superior Court

Good Law
166 Cal. App. 3d 485·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1850·212 Cal. Rptr. 516
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 1985F004944California3,244 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hanson, J.

The prosecution seeks access to written records relating to conversations between petitioner and Julio Gramajo, a clinical social worker.

An information filed in Tulare County Superior Court charged petitioner with burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), kidnaping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)), forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. 2), assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220), and unlawful intercourse with a female under age 18 (Pen. Code, § 261.5). It was further alleged petitioner personally used a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12022.5 in four of the charged offenses.

The district attorney filed a motion to deny the psychotherapist-patient privilege (Evid. Code, §§ 1010-1028) and discover communications between petitioner and Julio Gramajo. The court ruled the communications did not fall within the psychotherapist-patient privilege and even if they did, the records indicated petitioner was a danger to others, i.e., the victim, and therefore the documents were discoverable. However, the court noted the probability that release of these records would have a devastating effect on petitioner’s defense. Therefore, release of the records was stayed to enable…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.