Court of Appeals of Maryland· 10/22/2014
State v. Johnson
Citations
- 440 Md. 228
- 102 A.3d 295
- 2014 Md. LEXIS 720
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that a “speculative assertion that the records might be relevant for impeachment” is insufficient to justify in camera review (quoting Goldsmith v. State, 651 A.2d 866, 877 (Md. App. 1995))
- summarizing cases in which in camera review was necessary due to other evidence of recantation or inconsistent statements
- distinguishing Jaffee and holding that the victim’s right to assert a privilege may, under certain circumstances, have to yield to the criminal defendant’s constitutional rights at trial
- both citing a majority of states that have decided a victim's privilege may be subordinate to a defendant's constitutional rights
- “We recognize how unlikely it may be that a defendant or defense counsel will know in advance what information is in a patient’s privileged mental health or psychotherapy records. Nonetheless, in order to gain access to any information in those records, the defendant may (and must
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. BlackwellSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2017-05-31· cited 19×
- State v. O'NeillOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-01-30· cited 1×
- State v. Patrick J. LynchWisconsin Supreme Court· 2016-07-13
- Westley v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2021-07-02
- John Robert Douglas v. State of Alaska, John Robert Douglas v. State of AlaskaCourt of Appeals of Alaska· 2023-03-17
Cites
28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court· 1974-02-27· cited 5,953×
- Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court· 1987-02-24· cited 2,521×
- United States v. Valenzuela-BernalSupreme Court· 1982-07-02· cited 1,404×
- Jaffee v. RedmondSupreme Court· 1996-06-13· cited 915×
- People v. StanawayMichigan Supreme Court· 1994-08-29· cited 494×
- State of Iowa v. Christopher Craig ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa· 2013-08-23· cited 173×
- Commonwealth v. DwyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2006-12-29· cited 126×
- Commonwealth v. BarrosoKentucky Supreme Court· 2003-12-18· cited 92×
- Zaal v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1992-03-16· cited 79×
- Commonwealth v. WilsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-01-31· cited 79×
- State v. HummelSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1992-04-17· cited 67×
- Goldsmith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1995-01-12· cited 58×
- State v. PesetiHawaii Supreme Court· 2003-02-27· cited 49×
- State v. SlimskeySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-09-04· cited 49×
- Fisher v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1999-09-08· cited 40×
- State v. BlakeUtah Supreme Court· 2002-11-26· cited 36×
- Thomas v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2002-12-18· cited 34×
- Burns v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware· 2009-05-04· cited 26×
- In Re Crisis Connection, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court· 2011-06-23· cited 25×
- Reynolds v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1993-12-02· cited 20×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.