Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.