Commonwealth v. G.P.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentTodd, J.
¶ 1 While the Majority acknowledges that in the present case, “the true issue is not whether appellant was a client to the psychotherapist, and is thereby entitled to the protection of that relationship.... ” (Majority Opinion, at 368), it does not set forth a clear ruling on that issue. I would hold, as did the trial court, that the statements made by Appellant to Dr. Carlson were not privileged because there never was a true psychologist-client relationship between the two. Having determined that the privilege is not applicable, I believe that the proper inquiry is whether the confession…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Michigan v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Commonwealth v. NesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Matter of Adoption of EmbickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.