Can crime victims intervene in criminal appeals to protect confidential therapy records? F.L. v. Court of Appeals Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in F.L. v. Court of Appeals establishes important protections for crime victims seeking to safeguard their confidential therapy records during criminal appeals. The court held that victims have a proactive right to intervene as limited-purpose parties when their privileged mental health records are at stake in appellate proceedings.

Background and Facts

F.L. was the alleged victim in a criminal case against David Chadwick, who was charged with sexual abuse of a child. During trial proceedings, the district court conducted an in camera review of F.L.’s therapy records and disclosed certain excerpts to the defense while sealing the records. After Chadwick’s conviction, he appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, challenging the adequacy of the in camera review. The court of appeals unsealed F.L.’s records and classified them as private, allowing Chadwick’s attorney extensive access. When F.L. sought to intervene as a limited-purpose party to protect her records’ confidentiality, the court of appeals denied intervention but allowed her to file an amicus brief.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether F.L. could intervene as a limited-purpose party in the criminal appeal to assert her privilege rights in her confidential therapy records, or whether amicus status provided adequate protection for her interests.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court granted F.L.’s petition for extraordinary relief, finding the court of appeals abused its discretion. The court applied the reasoning from State v. Brown, establishing that when the law gives crime victims the ability to proactively assert rights, they may enforce those rights as limited-purpose parties. Utah Rule of Evidence 506 provides that patients may “claim the privilege” to refuse disclosure of confidential mental health communications. The court determined this language connotes a proactive right that cannot be adequately protected through amicus status, which only allows commentary on issues raised by the parties and prohibits motion practice.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crime victims with stronger procedural protections for their confidential records in criminal appeals. Practitioners representing victims should seek limited-purpose party intervention rather than settling for amicus status when privileged records are at stake. The ruling also clarifies that extraordinary relief may be the only available remedy for challenging intermediate appellate court orders denying intervention, as certiorari review requires a final decision.