State v. Snell

John Snell (defendant) was a 59-year-old man who perpetrated acts of child sexual abuse on his paramour’s two granddaughters, who were 10 and 11 years old. Snell claimed to have performed the acts with the children to educate them so that they would not become sexually active. When Snell informed his paramour about the abuse, she insisted that he see a psychiatrist. Snell saw Dr. Torrance with one of the granddaughters and admitted committing one act of sexual abuse on both girls. Dr. Torrance then reported the sexual abuse to the Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). Dr. Torrance felt compelled to disclose the confidential information that Snell shared because, under New Jersey law, any person with knowledge of child abuse was required to report it under threat of prosecution for failure to report. Any person making a report of child abuse was immune from liability, whether civil or criminal, that might otherwise occur because of the disclosure. Because of Dr. Torrance’s report, Snell was arrested. A trial court ruled that Dr. Torrance’s report to the DYFS was proper and that he could also testify at Snell’s trial regarding Snell’s statements, which were admissible. After this ruling, Snell pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated sexual assault. Snell reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s evidentiary ruling as part of his plea agreement. On appeal, Snell argued that his statements to Dr. Torrance were privileged and that he should not have been committed for 18 years. Snell relied on the psychologist-patient privilege, which did not contain an exception applicable if reporting to a public agency was mandated by state law. State law provided that the psychologist-patient privilege was akin to the attorney-client privilege and that the law was not to be construed in a manner that required the disclosure of privileged communications by anyone.