Manning v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. A98A0159.,A98A0159. |
| Parties | MANNING v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael B. King, College Park, for appellant.
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Brian J. Amero, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
Claudia Denise Manning was convicted of simple battery and aggravated assault involving the same victim, her boyfriend.
The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, showed that Manning entered the victim's home without permission, then struck the victim in the face with a wooden object when he asked her to leave. About six weeks later, Manning drove up beside the same victim, left her vehicle and stabbed him in the shoulder. Manning then backed her vehicle into him and sped away. Manning claimed self-defense as to both incidents.
Certified copies of the victim's medical records from the stabbing incident were admitted at trial. In addition, the court admitted a Clayton County-Flint River Center Family Information Perspective ("questionnaire") that the victim discovered mixed in with his papers in a box in Manning's apartment. On this questionnaire, Manning listed the patient/client as her young daughter. In response to one inquiry, Manning wrote, "Daughter witnessed my violent crime...." Manning made several other highly inculpatory admissions as to her rage, anger, problems with temper control, as well as specific past incidents of her abuse of boyfriends, including the victim here. The court excluded one statement involving past incidents of violence with previous boyfriends and ordered it redacted. Held:
1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the questionnaire into evidence. Before a person can invoke the confidentiality privilege under OCGA § 24-9-21(5), she must show that the requisite psychologist-patient or psychiatrist-patient relationship existed to the extent that treatment was given or contemplated. Strickland v. State, 260 Ga. 28, 30(5)(b), 389 S.E.2d 230 (1990). In this case, Manning failed to show that a professional relationship had been actually contemplated or formed or psychological treatment rendered to her or her daughter. Compare Mrozinski v. Pogue, 205 Ga. App. 731, 733(1), 423 S.E.2d 405 (1992). Manning offered no appointment records, office receipts, or any evidence to even suggest that a confidential professional relationship existed. The questionnaire was not obtained from a medical provider or from the unauthorized disclosure of clinical records but from a box in her apartment. Moreover, Manning offered no evidence that the information she provided in the questionnaire was ever imparted to a medical professional. So it cannot be said that the document constituted a privileged communication within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-21(5) or (6). See Plunkett v. Ginsburg, 217 Ga.App. 20, 21, 456 S.E.2d 595 (1995).
Notwithstanding Manning's assertion, the State did not impermissibly inject her character into the case. During cross-examination of the victim, defense counsel elicited the statement previously deemed inadmissible. The court denied Manning's motion for a mistrial, and Manning declined any curative instruction. Because defense counsel elicited the redacted information, Manning cannot now complain about that testimony. Heard v. State, 204 Ga.App. 757, 759(4), 420 S.E.2d 639 (1992). See Littlefield v. State, 197 Ga.App. 343, 344(2), 398 S.E.2d 375 (1990).
2. Manning contends that the trial court erred in admitting the victim's medical records. The State offered the records to prove that the victim had required medical treatment for the injuries Manning inflicted. Over a hearsay objection, the court admitted a certified copy of the victim's hospital records and gave the jury a limiting instruction. However, statutes, like OCGA § 24-7-8, which pertain to the authentication of documents do not remove hearsay considerations. McGaha v. State,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham v. State
...is presented, the State bears the burden of disproving that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. [Cits.]" Manning v. State, 231 Ga.App. 584, 585(3), 499 S.E.2d 650 (1998). As to this defense, the trial court gave Ms. Graham substantial leeway in presenting extensive and graphic testimony that......
-
Herendeen v. State
...or psychiatrist-patient relationship existed to the extent that treatment was given or contemplated. [Cit.]" Manning v. State, 231 Ga.App. 584(1), 499 S.E.2d 650 (1998). One who visits a psychiatrist "on her own volition for the purpose of gaining professional psychiatric assistance ... cre......
- Pulliam v. the State., A11A0564.
-
Hicks v. Talbott Recovery System
...these confidentiality privileges exist only when professional treatment was given or contemplated. See Manning v. State, 499 S.E.2d 650, 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (recognizing that the psychiatrist-patient and psychologist-patient privileges materialize only when a professional relationship w......
-
"i Didn't Volunteer for This @&#%!": the Application of Georgia's Psychologist-patient Privilege to Court-ordered Mental Health Treatment - John Scott Husser, Jr.
...But cf In the Interest of M.N.H. 237 Ga. App. 471, 517 S.E.2d 344 (1999). 33. See Massey, 226 Ga. 703, 177 S.E.2d 79; Manning v. State, 231 Ga. App. 584, 499 S.E.2d 650 (1998); and Lucas v. State, 274 Ga. 640, 555 S.E.2d 440 (2001). 34. 274 Ga. at 645, 555 S.E.2d at 446. 35. See M.N.H., 237......