State v. L.J.P.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division · 1994 · Evidence

270 N.J. Super. 429 (1994)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencepsychologist-patient privilegerecantationimpeachmentconfrontationin camera reviewmaterialityless intrusive sources

Facts

Before trial, the judge reviewed DYFS records in camera and released copies of a psychologist's reports to counsel, but later ruled that the psychologist-patient privilege barred the defense from using the reports or calling the psychologist. One report stated that after retracting her molestation claim in a letter to a judge, the victim told the psychologist she had alleged molestation because she wanted to get closer to her mother, was angry about being punished, and had been having trouble with defendant. At trial, the victim testified that her letter recanting the accusations was not true and explained it as the product of pressure and her hope for a reunited family. The defense introduced other evidence that she had recanted to family members and police, but defendant was not allowed to use the psychologist evidence.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in applying the psychologist-patient privilege to bar the defense from introducing the victim's recantation statements to her psychologist, where those statements were material impeachment evidence in a sexual assault prosecution. Also, whether the court's impeachment ruling on prior convictions required reversal.

Rule

The psychologist-patient privilege, though afforded strong protection and akin to the attorney-client privilege, is not absolute. It may be pierced when common notions of fairness and the defendant's right to a fair trial require disclosure, upon a showing of legitimate need, relevance and materiality to a trial issue, and unavailability of the information from less intrusive sources.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a child assault prosecution in Newark, 13-year-old Maya Ortiz is the only eyewitness tying her stepfather, Nolan Briggs, to the charged acts. Before trial, defense counsel learns from a court-reviewed counseling file that Maya told her psychologist she invented the accusation because she was furious after being grounded and wanted her mother's attention. At trial, Maya admits she once recanted to her aunt but says that recantation was forced by family pressure.

If Nolan seeks to call the psychologist to testify to Maya's statement, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The privilege is strongly protected but not absolute. It may be pierced when fairness and the defendant's confrontation rights require disclosure upon a showing of legitimate need, materiality, and unavailability from less intrusive sources. Here, the psychologist statement directly impeaches the complainant on the core credibility issue and uniquely rebuts her explanation that her other recantation was caused by family pressure, so it is not merely cumulative.