• The NH Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent, now protecting mental health records similarly to doctor-patient and attorney-client records.
• The ruling arose from a case where a defendant sought access to an alleged victim's mental health records to discredit her testimony.
• The decision is hailed as a victory for victims' rights, ensuring privacy and encouraging mental health treatment.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has made a significant ruling that overrules decades of legal precedent. This ruling now provides the same level of protection to mental health records as is given to doctor-patient and attorney-client records. The decision stemmed from a case involving Gene Zarella, accused of sexual assault, who sought access to the alleged victim's mental health records. The court's decision aims to protect the privacy of victims and encourage them to seek mental health treatment without fear of their records being used against them.

• What: The New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned a legal precedent, protecting mental health records from being accessed by defendants in court cases without proper justification.
• Who: Key individuals include Gene Zarella (defendant), the alleged victim (unnamed), David Vicinanzo (attorney for the alleged victim), Hilary Holmes Rheaume (attorney for Coalition), Lyn Schollett (executive director of the NH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence), and Judge Amy Ignatius.
• When: The ruling was made on Thursday, May 1, 2025. The underlying alleged assaults occurred between March 2006 and July 2014. Zarella was indicted in late 2021.
• Where: The events occurred in New Hampshire, and the ruling was made by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Concord.

This ruling marks a significant shift in New Hampshire law, aligning the state with the majority of others that already protect mental health records to a similar degree as other privileged communications. The prior precedent placed victims in a vulnerable position, potentially discouraging them from seeking necessary mental health treatment. The new ruling balances the rights of the accused with the privacy rights of victims, requiring a higher legal standard for accessing mental health records. This could lead to increased reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence, and improved mental health outcomes for victims.

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 protect mental health records represents a victory for privacy rights and could encourage more victims of crime to seek mental health treatment. The ruling overturns a long-standing precedent that placed victims at risk of having their private records used against them. While the full impact of this decision remains to be seen, it is expected to have a positive effect on victims' well-being and the pursuit of justice in New Hampshire.