State v. Pelley

I respectfully dissent in part. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the communication between Pelley and the social worker is privileged because the State sought disclosure of that communication after the social worker-client privilege was established by Indiana Code section 25-23.6-6-1. See Op. at 683-634. The purpose of section 25-283.6-6-1 is clearly to protect a client's communications with his or her social worker. As the State observes in its Reply Brief, " '[plrivileges exist for the protection of communications that society has deemed worthy of 2a shroud of secrecy, rather…