Cited by

See Hope Coalition, d at 657–59 (considering whether the sexual-assault-counselor privilege prohibited the defendant’s motion for the victim’s therapist to produce records for in camera review without the victim’s consent); State v. Expose (Expose I), (holding that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the defendant’s therapist to testify about the defendant’s allegedly threatening statements without his consent at trial); –31 (Minn. 1984) (considering whether the physician- p

“But the initial determination of whether a particular testimonial privilege or exception exists as a matter of law is a question that we review de novo.” Id.; (“The applicability of an evidentiary privilege is a question of law that we review de novo.”).

d 252, 257 (Minn. 2015).

is a statutory evidentiary privilege that addresses when and under what circumstances therapists are permitted to testify about information acquired while treating a client”); (determining that the therapist-client privilege does not extend to third-party testimony); (considering whether “evidence is admissible in Minnesota where the evidence was properly obtained under Wisconsin law but Minnesota’s physician-patient pr

aff’d as modified, (concluding that a professional working at a mental health clinic who had a bachelor’s degree in psychology and had completed her master’s degree program in clinical counseling and marriage and family therapy was a “psychologist” for purposes of section 595.02, subdivision 1(g)).

[A] new trial is required only if the error “substantially influenced the jury’ s verdict.”

This is because, crucially, “[i]n assessing whether an error is harmless, the question is not whether the [other] evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, but rather whether the error substantially influenced the verdict.” (emphasis added).

to an unambiguous statute.” (quotation omitted).

The question is “whether the error substantially influenced the verdict.” State v. Expose , d 252, 260 (Minn. 2015) .

The ultimate question is “whether the error substantially influenced the verdict.”

-59 (Minn. 2015) (rejecting an argument that exceptions in other statutes supports recognition of an exception to the therapist-client privilege in part because the existence of exceptions in other statutes “demonstrate that the Legislature knows how to create an exception to the therapist-client privilege when

The ultimate question is “whether the error substantially influenced the verdict.” State v. Expose

Put another way, the question is “whether the error substantially influenced the verdict.”

at 37-39; (holding that district courts do not have inherent authority to create exception to statutory therapist-patient privilege).

2 In deciding in limine motions, the district court concluded that Lindberg’s which held that a district court need not exclude a third-part y’s testimony if a therapist discloses information otherwise protected by the therapist- patient privilege.

–59 (Minn. 2015) (“The inference to be drawn from the Legislature’s decision to create exceptions .

An error that does not implicate a constitutional right is harmless unless the error “substantially influenced the jury’s verdict.” (quotation omitted).

-59 (Minn. 2015) (stating that “[t]he inference to be drawn from the Legislature’s decision to create exceptions to the therapist-client privilege in some statutes, but not others, is that it did not intend to create 9 an exception to the privilege in those statu

1(g) (2014), contains an exception for threatening statements made by the client

P. 31.01; -61 (Minn. 2015) (applying harmless-error test to erroneous admission of testimony protected by privilege).

(determining whether Minnesota’s therapist- client privilege is subject to a “threats exception”).