Jorgensen v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 73S04-9107-CR-538,73S04-9107-CR-538 |
| Citation | 574 N.E.2d 915 |
| Parties | Vonda JORGENSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Roger D. Davis, Corydon, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
Vonda Jorgensen was convicted by jury of consipiracy to commit murder and of murder. She raises a number of issues in her petition to transfer, but we find it necessary to address only one: whether the trial court erred in denying her the opportunity to depose two people. Because we conclude that she should have had the opportunity to conduct such discovery, we grant transfer, and conditionally affirm the convictions pursuant to Ind.App.Rule 15(N)(6). Concerning the other issues raised in her petition, we adopt the decision of the Court of Appeals, Jorgensen v. State (1991), Ind.App., 567 N.E.2d 113.
We repeat only the facts necessary for our discussion of the discovery issue. Jorgensen, while married to the victim, was involved in a relationship with Gary Cochran. There was testimony at trial that Cochran told a friend that he wanted to kill the victim. Cochran had also supplied written confessions admitting to having committed the murder. According to Jorgensen, Cochran was counseled by William Ball, a social worker, and Dr. Robert Greenburg, a psychologist. Claiming these Jorgensen moved to take depositions of Ball and Dr. Greenburg on the grounds that Cochran may have made self-incriminating statements to them. Counsel for Dr. Greenburg moved for a protective order to prevent him from testifying because Cochran had not consented to a release of the confidential medical information given to Dr. Greenburg during his examination of Cochran. Ball made no such motion. The trial court denied Jorgensen's request, apparently on the grounds that either the information possessed by Ball and Dr. Greenburg was privileged or that Jorgensen had not shown the information requested was material to her defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling on the latter ground, viz., that Jorgensen had not shown that the information sought was material to her defense.
two people had information which might tend to show that Cochran, rather than Jorgensen, who committed the murder, Jorgensen requested their depositions. Her request was denied by the trial court. Jorgensen claims the trial court erred in denying her the opportunity to take the depositions. We agree that she should have been permitted to conduct discovery to determine whether these individuals had nonprivileged information relevant to her defense.
The privilege referred to by Dr. Greenburg, found at IND.CODE Sec. 25-33-1-17, creates a privilege, held by a patient, prohibiting a psychologist from disclosing "any information acquired from persons with whom the psychologist has dealt in a professional capacity, except under the following circumstances: (1) trials for homicide when the disclosure relates directly to the fact or immediate circumstances of said homicide." Apparent from a reading of the statute is that if the information sought by Jorgensen relates to the homicide at issue here, the information Dr. Greenburg has about the homicide would not be privileged. Therefore, to the extent Jorgensen seeks information relating to the facts or immediate circumstances of the homicide, the statutory psychologist-patient privilege may not exist in this case. It is unclear which, if any, statutory privilege might apply to Ball; none has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Subpoena To Crisis Connection Inc.State
...held by a psychologist under the homicide exception to the psychologist-patient privilege, as discussed in footnote 4, supra. 574 N.E.2d 915, 917–18 (Ind.1991). We explicitly stated that the test applied “[w]ith respect to nonprivileged information.” Id. at 917; see id. at 918 (instructing ......
-
In Re Subpoena To Crisis Connection Inc.State Of Indiana
...privileged. 828 N.E.2d 915 (Ind.2005). Crisis Connection appears to be referring to the portion of the opinion discussing Jorgensen v. State, 574 N.E.2d 915 (Ind.1991). Jorgensen states:With respect to nonprivileged information, there are two principal questions which a trial court must con......
-
WTHR-TV, In re
...Where the only method for determining materiality is production, a specific showing of materiality is not required. Jorgensen v. State, 574 N.E.2d 915, 917 (Ind.1991) (referring to that situation as a Nonetheless, "[w]here the materiality of the information is not self-evident the [defendan......
-
Soutiere v. Betzdearborn, Inc., CIV.A. 299CV299.
... ... 69, Ex. C) ... In 1994, Soutiere filed a complaint with the state under the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Act ("VOSHA") in which he stated that he and two colleagues had been exposed to toxic chemicals. A ... ...
-
A Psychiatric Perspective on Washington's Sexually Violent Predators Statute
...of Cal., 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976) (finding duty of psychotherapist to protect third party from a violent patient); Jorgensen v. State, 574 N.E.2d 915 (Ind. 1991) (finding no psychologist-patient privilege for homicide information obtained from third party); In re Rules Adoption Regarding In......