## Facts

- Erik and Lyle Menendez were charged with murdering their parents, Jose and Mary Louise Menendez, in Beverly Hills on August 20, 1989.
- The brothers were treated by Dr. Leon Jerome Oziel, a licensed clinical psychologist, and discussed the homicides in therapy sessions.
- A magistrate issued a search warrant under Penal Code § 1524 to search Dr. Oziel’s office and residence and seize materials, including audiotapes relating to the killings; a special master was appointed under § 1524(c).
- Dr. Oziel produced three audiocassettes, including dictated notes summarizing joint sessions on October 31 and November 2, 1989; notes of a session with Erik on November 28, 1989; and a recording of a joint session on December 11, 1989.
- Dr. Oziel asserted the psychotherapist–patient privilege on the brothers’ behalf; the special master sealed the materials pending a privilege hearing, and the brothers intervened to assert the privilege themselves.
- After an in camera proceeding, the superior court ordered disclosure of all tapes, finding the “dangerous patient” exception applied and/or confidentiality had been lost.
- The Court of Appeal largely affirmed, relying on the dangerous patient exception and a broad view that later disclosures defeated confidentiality.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the privilege applied and the scope of the Evidence Code § 1024 exception.

## Issues

1. Whether the audiotaped and recorded therapy communications were protected by the psychotherapist–patient privilege under the Evidence Code.
2. Whether Evidence Code § 1024 (dangerous patient exception) permitted disclosure of some or all communications to law enforcement and prosecutors.
3. Whether the privilege was defeated by loss of confidentiality or waiver based on the therapist’s subsequent disclosures.

## Decision

- The court held the psychotherapist–patient privilege initially applied to all communications reflected on the tapes.
- The court held Evidence Code § 1024 permitted disclosure of communications from the October 31 and November 2 sessions because the therapist had reasonable cause to believe the patients were dangerous and disclosure was necessary to prevent threatened harm.
- The court held § 1024 did not permit disclosure of communications from the November 28 and December 11 sessions because the statutory requirement that disclosure be necessary to prevent harm was not shown for those later communications.
- The court rejected the view that a factual loss of confidentiality automatically eliminates the statutory privilege; privilege persists unless waived or displaced by a statutory exception.
- The court approved the use of in camera review under Evidence Code § 915 in a Penal Code § 1524(c) proceeding to determine the validity of privilege and exception claims.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing disclosure of the earlier-session communications and barring disclosure of the later-session communications.

## Legal Principles

- Psychotherapist–patient privilege protects confidential communications made in the course of diagnosis or treatment, including recordings and the therapist’s dictated notes, absent waiver or a statutory exception.
- Evidence Code § 1024 permits disclosure of otherwise privileged communications only when the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe the patient is dangerous and disclosure is necessary to prevent the threatened danger.
- The § 1024 inquiry is communication- and time-specific; satisfaction of the exception for some sessions does not automatically justify disclosure of later sessions.
- Breach or loss of confidentiality in a factual sense does not, by itself, extinguish the statutory privilege; courts must identify waiver or an applicable statutory exception.
- Evidence Code § 915 authorizes in camera review to decide privilege disputes in search-warrant proceedings under Penal Code § 1524(c) when needed to rule on the claim.

## Conclusion

The court treated the brothers’ therapy recordings as privileged communications but limited disclosure to those sessions meeting the strict requirements of Evidence Code § 1024, preserving privilege for later sessions where necessity to prevent harm was not established.


Menendez v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 4th 435 (Cal. 1992)