In affirming a reversal of a criminal conviction, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that records of sex abuse treatment of a juvenile were not privileged and were incorrectly kept from the defense.

John was a ten-year-old who accused his mother's boyfriend of sexually assaulting him. John was treated by a "sexual information and trauma team," which produced records of the evaluation. The boyfriend, also the defendant, was denied access to these and other counseling records on the basis that the records contained privileged information. He was convicted of three charges of indecent assault and battery. On the appellate level, the court examined the records and found that they contained information that could support the defendant's innocence. Accordingly, they reversed.

The Commonwealth sought further review. This time, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the motion judge who deemed the records privileged had done so in error and that the mere assertion of a privilege does not in fact establish its existence. A judge must specify in writing which privileges are found to apply. Also, the court held that the records were indeed relevant to the issue of the defendant's innocence and among other uses, would have provided a basis with which to retain a defense expert and aided in cross-examination. Concerned with a potentially misleading appellate court opinion on the matter, the court touched on the public policy that privileged records of juvenile victims are afforded as much protection as those of their adult counterparts. It then granted the defendant a new trial.