or excuse.” Clinger, 446 N.Y.S.2d at 805. 20.In the present case, we determine the contours of the asserted duty of confidentiality as well as any affirmative defenses of justification or excuse, by reference to expressions of public policy stated in New Mexico’s professional licensing statutes, rules of evidence, and our state constitution. The New Mexico legislature has recognized that the duty to safeguard patient confidences extends to psychologists, social workers, mental health counselors and therapists, and their staffs. See NMSA 1978, §§ 61-9-18 (1989) (psychologists and psychologist associates); 61-9A-27 (1993) (mental health counselors and therapists); 61-31-24 (1989) (social workers); cf. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 13-19, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 1930-32, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the New Mexico Rules of Evidence
holding that significant state involvement satisfies public participation requirement because it serves the identical purpose that the public notice provision seeks to effectuate recognizing that it serves no discernible public purpose to draw distinctions between clinical social work and other mental health professions with regard to the need for confidentiality recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records holding that turners neutrality requirement allows a prison policy to draw distinctions so long as those distinctions flow from the governments legitimate penological interest holding that states may regulate all professions concerned with health