AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, specifically his daughter. The State intended to call a licensed social worker who provided counseling to the Defendant as a witness. The Defendant sought a protective order to prevent the disclosure of confidential communications made to the social worker for diagnosis and treatment purposes. The district court granted this protective order, leading to the State's appeal (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted Defendant's motion for a protective order, preventing the disclosure of confidential communications made by the Defendant to his social worker and involving the Defendant's ex-wife in counseling sessions (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant could not invoke privilege to prevent disclosure of confidential communications because both the social worker and the Defendant's ex-wife were subject to mandatory reporting requirements regarding child abuse (paras 5-6).
• Defendant-Appellee (Jason Strauch): Contended that his communications with the social worker are privileged under Rule 11-504 NMRA, and neither the social worker nor his ex-wife were mandatory reporters under the Abuse and Neglect Act, thus not required to disclose confidential communications made during counseling (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent others from disclosing, confidential communications made to a licensed social worker for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment.
• Whether the mandatory reporting requirement of the Abuse and Neglect Act applies to every person, including the Defendant's social worker and ex-wife, thus making an exception to the privilege rule.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for a protective order, allowing him to prevent the disclosure of confidential communications made to his social worker and involving his ex-wife in the counseling sessions (para 32).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Vanzi with Judge Fry concurring and Judge Hanisee dissenting, held that the Defendant has a privilege under Rule 11-504 NMRA to prevent the disclosure of confidential communications made for the purposes of diagnosis or treatment. The court concluded that neither the Defendant’s social worker nor his ex-wife were subject to the mandatory reporting requirement of the Abuse and Neglect Act, as it does not apply to every person and a social worker providing private counseling is not “acting in an official capacity” within the meaning of the Act. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, including the doctrine of ejusdem generis, to determine the legislative intent behind the mandatory reporting requirement, concluding it applies to professionals most likely to encounter abused and neglected children in their professional capacities, not to every person or to social workers in a private counseling context (paras 9-28). Judge Hanisee's dissent argued that the statute's language "every person" should be interpreted to mean any person aware of child abuse, thus requiring them to report, and criticized the majority's application of ejusdem generis as misplaced (paras 34-45).