• NH Supreme Court overturns precedent, protecting mental health records from being used against alleged victims in court.
• The ruling was spurred by a case where a defendant sought access to an alleged victim's therapy records.
• The decision aligns NH with most other states and is seen as a win for victims' rights and mental health privacy.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has overturned decades of legal precedent in a landmark ruling that provides increased protection for mental health records. This decision, made in response to a case involving an alleged victim of childhood sexual abuse, ensures that mental health records are treated with the same level of confidentiality as doctor-patient and attorney-client communications. Prior to this ruling, New Hampshire law allowed defendants to access these records in an attempt to discredit witnesses, a practice now deemed unjust and harmful to victims seeking mental health treatment.

• What: The New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned a legal precedent to protect mental health records from being accessed by defendants in court cases, granting them the same privacy as medical and attorney-client records.
• Who: Key individuals involved include Gene Zarella (defendant), the alleged victim, David Vicinanzo (attorney for the alleged victim), Hilary Holmes Rheaume (attorney for Coalition), Lyn Schollett (executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence), and Judge Amy Ignatius.
• When: The ruling was made on Thursday, May 1, 2025, overturning precedents established before a 2018 constitutional amendment.
• Where: The events took place in New Hampshire, specifically involving the New Hampshire Supreme Court and lower courts.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision marks a significant shift in the legal landscape, prioritizing the privacy rights of individuals seeking mental health treatment. By preventing defendants from accessing these records, the ruling aims to encourage victims of crime to seek help without fear of their personal information being used against them. The decision aligns New Hampshire with the majority of other states that already offer similar protections. The ruling's impact extends beyond sexual assault cases, potentially influencing other legal proceedings where mental health records may be relevant.

It’s a big win for erasing the taboo against mental health treatment and the stigma of mental illness. By raising the status of the protective privilege, the status and importance of mental health treatment is elevated as well.

For too long, our justice system has emphasized a defendant’s rights while placing victims in the defendant's shadow. With today’s decision, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has affirmed that victims have a fundamental right to be notified and heard—particularly when their privacy is at stake. This is a win for all victims of sexual assault, who now have protections that did not exist before today.

The outrageous practice of accessing victims’ irrelevant, personal information ends today.

New Hampshire was among a small minority that said due process of the defendant overruled private, non-governmental parties' rights. This corrects that bad law. Due process is one of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a set of protections of the citizen against the government. It is not one right a private citizen has against another private citizen.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision to overturn precedent marks a pivotal advancement for both victims' rights and the protection of mental health privacy, rectifying a long-standing imbalance in the justice system. By shielding mental health records from unwarranted access, the ruling aligns New Hampshire with the majority of states and addresses a critical injustice against crime victims, ensuring they are notified and heard when their privacy is at stake. This landmark decision, impacting the state's constitutional right to privacy for the first time, is expected to encourage more individuals to seek mental health treatment without fear of reprisal in legal proceedings, effectively destigmatizing mental illness and elevating the importance of mental health care. While future legal challenges and interpretations are anticipated, the immediate effect is a significant stride towards safeguarding sensitive mental health information, establishing a higher legal standard for accessing these records, and empowering victims and therapists to contest disclosures in court, setting a new precedent for privacy rights in the state.