CACI 215 Exercise of a Communication Privilege
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
215 Exercise of a Communication Privilege
[Name of party/witness] has an absolute right not to disclose what [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] told [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] [doctor/attorney/[other]] in confidence because the law considers this information privileged. Do not consider, for any reason at all, the fact that [name of party/witness] did not disclose what [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] told [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] [doctor/attorney/[other]]. Do not discuss that fact during your deliberations or let it influence your decision in any way.
New September 2003; Revised December 2012
Directions for Use
This instruction must be given upon request, if appropriate and the court has determined that the privilege has not been waived. (Evid. Code, § 913(b).)
Sources and Authority
• No Presumption on Exercise of Privilege. Evidence Code section 913(b).
• The comment to Evidence Code section 913 notes that this statute “may modify existing California law as it applies in civil cases.” Specifically, the comment notes that section 913 in effect overrules two Supreme Court cases: Nelson v. Southern Pacific Co. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 648 [67 P.2d 682] and Fross v. Wotton (1935) 3 Cal.2d 384 [44 P.2d 350]. The Nelson court had held that evidence of a person’s exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination in a prior proceeding may be shown for impeachment purposes if he or she testifies in a self-exculpatory manner in a subsequent proceeding. Language in Fross indicated that unfavorable inferences may be drawn in a civil case from a party’s claim of the privilege against self-incrimination during the case itself.