ROSOLVO JEAN-BAPTISTE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jean-Baptiste appealed his probation violation finding, arguing that communications with his substance abuse counselor were privileged mental health communications. The court held that by agreeing to probation conditions requiring substance abuse treatment and drug testing, Jean-Baptiste waived any privilege that might have existed under Florida law.
Communications with the substance abuse counselor were not privileged because Jean-Baptiste waived any privilege by accepting probation conditions that necessarily involved reporting to supervisory authorities. The evidence of willful and substantial violation was sufficient.
[1] A defendant placed on probation conditioned upon successful completion of substance abuse treatment waives the psychotherapist-patient privilege regarding communications…
[2] Communications made to a psychotherapist are not considered confidential and thus not privileged when the patient agrees to treatment as a condition of probation and know…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“By signing the deferred prosecution agreement, Saenz indicated that he intended his subsequent communications with the psychotherapists to be communicated to a third person other than those set out in section 90.503(1), i.e., his probation officer. These communications therefore did not constitute "confidential communications" to which the privilege would apply.”
Establishes the waiver doctrine: agreeing to probation with treatment requirements means communications are intended to be shared with third parties and thus lose privilege protection.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean-Baptiste pleaded guilty to a crime with adjudication withheld and was placed on 18 months' probation. His probation agreement required him to com…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deferred Prosecution Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court found that appellant had violated his probation based in part on the testimony of his substance abuse counsel-or, who testified that appellant had not finished his treatment, that he was discharged because he tested positive for marijuana, and that he had admitted to her that he had used drugs. Appellant argues that his communications with his counselor were privileged as mental health treatment communications under section 90.503, Florida Statutes (2004). We disagree.
The state argues that when appellant pled guilty to the earlier crime for which adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on eighteen months’ probation, he waived the privilege. Appellant’s probation agreement provided that he would have a substance abuse evaluation performed and that he would successfully complete recommended treatment. It also provided he would submit to random drug testing.
In Saenz v. Alexander, 584 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991),. a physician was charged with sexual battery and, instead of being prosecuted, signed a deferred prosecution agreement providing for twenty-four months’ probation to be supervised by the DOC. When the victim filed a civil suit against him, the trial court allowed her to depose the mental health professionals who treated the doctor, and the doctor petitioned for certiorari on the ground of privilege. The first district denied the petition, explaining:
By signing the deferred prosecution agreement, Saenz indicated that he intended his subsequent communications with the psychotherapists to be communicated to a third person other than those set out in section 90.503(1), i.e., his probation officer. These communications therefore did not constitute “confidential communications” to which the privilege would apply.... Like the petitioner in Carson v. Jackson [466 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ], petitioner voluntarily chose to avail himself of a benefit offered him (Carson avoided incarceration, petitioner avoided prosecution), which was conditioned upon the diagnosis and treatment of his mental state, and communicated with psychotherapists with the knowledge that his communications would be conveyed to others.
Saenz, 584 So. 2d at 1063.
Applying Saenz here, we conclude that appellant waived any privilege which may have existed under the statute. We also reject his argument that there was no evidence of a willful and substantial violation.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Carson v. Jackson, 466 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Saenz v. Alexander, 584 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)